Possible Mechanism for Seachem Prime Detoxification of Ammonia

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If one made a solution containing ammonium sulfamate (meaning there is ammonia and ammonium and sulfamate in solution) , it will show in a test just the same as ammonium chloride solution or household ammonia (ammonium hydroxide) unless the sulfamate itself messed up the test chemistry somehow (which is unrelated to whether the ammonia/ammonia is detectable).
Now what if one shifts the equilibrium of just sulfamic acid from NH3SO3 to NH2SO3. Charge changes. I think it may also read on strips.
 
OP
OP
Randy Holmes-Farley

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,861
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Now what if one shifts the equilibrium of just sulfamic acid from NH3SO3 to NH2SO3. Charge changes. I think it may also read on strips.

I don't understand this line of discussion from a chemical perspective, but in general, I have no idea if or how the form of sulfamate present at seawater pH (NH2SO3-) will interact with test methods.
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The salicylate test uses hypochlorite to form a chloramine Intermediate. This is why primary amines can interfere with this test (false positive) and why products like Prime that neutralize chlorine interfere with the test (false negative). The color changing dye in the colorimetric ammonia sensing film is an acid-base indicator.
This is how we are seeing where the N2 goes. After reaction of ammonia and ingredients, to sulfamic acid in N2 form. Via the reaction in salicylate N2 is getting bound with organics. Other wise no color change. It doesn't stay as chloramine.
- I also fear salicylate based test kit will interfere and not prove anything completely useful
With that said we cant prove if prime is sulfamic acid after reactions. You also cant say it isn't. I trust my test giving me a green color, my math, scales, graduated cylinders, volumetric pipettes. All in non tank water. All sera kit tested. Just used api vials. Api and sera are the same method just in a different amount of bottles. I did also test with excess of sulfamic acid. It goes to very yellow like taricha test. This person never said how they weighed it. Where in tank water it may not be sulfamic acid anymore, over amount, or significantly diluted. I overshot ammonia. I couldn't get a very small amount out of pipette. The color would be negligible in ammonia and sulfamic acid at that blue of a color. However you see just the kit, and sulfamic show green. Shows this route does bind ammonia to create N2 form(after prime reactions if it is end product), then to organics. Possible other unanticipated forms as well. Hence saying earlier square 1 or 100.
 

taricha

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
6,484
Reaction score
9,996
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This person never said how they weighed it. Where in tank water it may not be sulfamic acid anymore, over amount, or significantly diluted.
(14.0 / 97.1) * (.365g sulfamic acid /36.5mL distilled) * (.870mL stock / 850mL Tank water) = 1.47 mg/L Nitrogen.

(Edit: pH adjusted to 8.35+-.03 for each sample)

Simply, which observation do you think I missed and should repeat?
That sulfamic acid generated no green with salicylate test for me (not particularly relevant), or that it generated no color with the seachem films (more central to the point).

You could just, y'know get some of the disks for under $20 and check them, might be easier than making up elaborate conjectures about what they might react with and how.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@taricha My point is it is to much. If you go by 1.5 N. This is why you see yellow. Try with actual 1.5mg total or less. Not 1.5 nitrogen. Too much effects the test, and wont learn anything.
 

taricha

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
6,484
Reaction score
9,996
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@taricha My point is it is to much. If you go by 1.5 N. This is why you see yellow. Try with actual 1.5mg total or less. Not 1.5 nitrogen. Too much effects the test, and wont learn anything.
Actually what you learn is that if you had 1.5mg/L of total ammonia-nitrogen, and added Prime to it and if it hypothetically had reacted with the ammonia to form the sulfamate as is the proposed mechanism, then you'd have 1.5 mg/L N in sulfamate.
This test says that would look like zero ammonia yellow to the API kit.
But if you actually use Prime to "treat" 1.5 ppm Total ammonia-nitrogen, that's not what you see with API. You find the green color is just interfered with a little bit. Thus, it seems the proposed mechanism is not likely occurring.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Actually what you learn is that if you had 1.5mg/L of total ammonia-nitrogen, and added Prime to it and if it hypothetically had reacted with the ammonia to form the sulfamate as is the proposed mechanism, then you'd have 1.5 mg/L N in sulfamate.
This test says that would look like zero ammonia yellow to the API kit.
But if you actually use Prime to "treat" 1.5 ppm Total ammonia-nitrogen, that's not what you see with API. You find the green color is just interfered with a little bit. Thus, it seems the proposed mechanism is not likely occurring.

Thanks for the clarification. You would make a great teacher :)
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Actually what you learn is that if you had 1.5mg/L of total ammonia-nitrogen, and added Prime to it and if it hypothetically had reacted with the ammonia to form the sulfamate as is the proposed mechanism, then you'd have 1.5 mg/L N in sulfamate.
This test says that would look like zero ammonia yellow to the API kit.
But if you actually use Prime to "treat" 1.5 ppm Total ammonia-nitrogen, that's not what you see with API. You find the green color is just interfered with a little bit. Thus, it seems the proposed mechanism is not likely occurring.
Also because it doesn't stay sulfamic acid. What is happening when you add excess sulfamic acid it effects the oxidation/reduction of end molecule. Hence different color. That is just flat out wrong doing it your way is being deceptive.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Also because it doesn't stay sulfamic acid. What is happening when you add excess sulfamic acid it effects the oxidation/reduction of end molecule. Hence different color. That is just flat out wrong doing it your way is being deceptive.
Please supply information that supports your assertions. It would also be a big help if you were less brief in your counter arguments. Your writing style makes it difficult to follow what you are trying to get across.
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Please supply information that supports your assertions. It would also be a big help if you were less brief in your counter arguments. Your writing style makes it difficult to follow what you are trying to get across.
Sorry you don't understand why things work the way they do. Go back to top and read all over again. Sulfamic acid is reacting with other things. (Not staying that compound) Also why excess effects the test I have explained. (I do also have pictures of this) If you can't understand ask don't continue to troll. The reason for even testing this was to show 1: It doesn't stay as sulfamic acid. 2: It may the ingredient or it may be an intermediate. 3: Also to show how it can bind to organics. Simple stuff really.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sorry you don't understand why things work the way they do. Go back to top and read all over again. Sulfamic acid is reacting with other things. (Not staying that compound) Also why excess effects the test I have explained. (I do also have pictures of this) If you can't understand ask don't continue to troll. The reason for even testing this was to show 1: It doesn't stay as sulfamic acid. 2: It may the ingredient or it may be an intermediate. 3: Also to show how it can bind to organics. Simple stuff really.
Thanks for the recap. It is not that I don’t understand chemistry, I can’t quite follow your discussion of chemistry. Your points 1-4 help sort out what you are trying to get across. Much appreciated.
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Dan_P @taricha I would also like to point out but didn't mention it. That this test could be putting SO3 groups onto salicylate if over amount voids how we see the color. Now you see why maybe important?
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Dan_P @taricha I would also like to point out but didn't mention it. That this test could be putting SO3 groups onto salicylate if over amount voids how we see the color. Now you see why maybe important?
Yep, we need to keep an open mind.

What I don’t understand is why we are trying to explain how Prime works when there is little evidence that it does and direct evidence that it does not. We will certainly try to make the ammonia sensing films give false positives (indicating free ammonia when there isn’t) and try to validate the films beyond the manufacturers claims.
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Yep, we need to keep an open mind.

What I don’t understand is why we are trying to explain how Prime works when there is little evidence that it does and direct evidence that it does not. We will certainly try to make the ammonia sensing films give false positives (indicating free ammonia when there isn’t) and try to validate the films beyond the manufacturers claims.
Randy deflect to his own thread. I wouldn't be the one to ask. Why explain? It is evident that it does. How else would you explain over 2.0 ammonia reading with prime not killing a fish, or the people who popped in and said it helped them. Maybe people want to know why and not be misled. Direct evidence in your test only show inverts with a over 1 year old bottle of prime. All I say is I don't agree with the ingredients. I do say though that it is evident that prime binds to organics. How it does this is beyond what you guys are finding.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Randy deflect to his own thread. I wouldn't be the one to ask. Why explain? It is evident that it does. How else would you explain over 2.0 ammonia reading with prime not killing a fish, or the people who popped in and said it helped them. Maybe people want to know why and not be misled. Direct evidence in your test only show inverts with a over 1 year old bottle of prime. All I say is I don't agree with the ingredients. I do say though that it is evident that prime binds to organics. How it does this is beyond what you guys are finding.
I think Randy wanted to give a fair hearing to a vendor who was being challeged with pretty good data. By making a separate post, Seachem was given some support.

As for the anecdotal data about “how Prime saved fish”, I discount that as valid data. There are very few new aquarist that understand fish physiology or pathology. Observational skills are not strong either. And the validity of any water chemistry measurement has to be questioned. The odds that any new aquarist and maybe the average aquarist has the skill to link Prime with saving fish is improbable. So it is very easy to ignore these data as evidence that Prime is effective.

I think we haven’t addressed the fact that Seachem provides no data at all that Prime works. Exactly zero scientific data demonstrating effectiveness except testimonials. Nor have we addressed the fact that Seachem tells us to use their ammonia detecting film to observe Prime working except it shows Prime not working and that is with a new bottle. And finally, no one has addressed the fact that these films measure free ammonia concentrations that match concentrations calculated from the total ammonia concentration, pH and temperature.

i am not trying to convince you but making the case to the general audience that there is no evidence that invalidates our hypothesis that Prime does not work. We continue to look for evidence to invalidate it but so far no luck.
 

DrZoidburg

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Near Lake George
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think Randy wanted to give a fair hearing to a vendor who was being challeged with pretty good data. By making a separate post, Seachem was given some support.

As for the anecdotal data about “how Prime saved fish”, I discount that as valid data. There are very few new aquarist that understand fish physiology or pathology. Observational skills are not strong either. And the validity of any water chemistry measurement has to be questioned. The odds that any new aquarist and maybe the average aquarist has the skill to link Prime with saving fish is improbable. So it is very easy to ignore these data as evidence that Prime is effective.

I think we haven’t addressed the fact that Seachem provides no data at all that Prime works. Exactly zero scientific data demonstrating effectiveness except testimonials. Nor have we addressed the fact that Seachem tells us to use their ammonia detecting film to observe Prime working except it shows Prime not working and that is with a new bottle. And finally, no one has addressed the fact that these films measure free ammonia concentrations that match concentrations calculated from the total ammonia concentration, pH and temperature.

i am not trying to convince you but making the case to the general audience that there is no evidence that invalidates our hypothesis that Prime does not work. We continue to look for evidence to invalidate it but so far no luck.
Well this puts it back at square 1 then. Where all your hanging onto is invert test, and hypothesis. Also I explained why they are more sensitive. One of these people in other thread work at lfs say it fixed problem by big percentage fish loss on arrival of new fish. Other threads show fish in excess of ammonia when it should be dead without. Other r2r members with good tank skills say it helped. I show you how a derivative can bind to organics. It would have similar binding of N with other intermediates/ingredients. These even if you say anecdotal evidence, are pretty compelling. I just don't think you guys can accept the fact if it works. I agree it would be keen if they provided testing. However maybe they know it works for x amount of days and don't have to provide this. In fact they tell you it only works for a certain time. (it is peer reviewed here and other places) Word of mouth is a good way to spread a product that works. If it was bad it wouldn't of made it past year one. Imo though this should not be relied upon long term, or with copper treatments. The side products pose a threat too but not as lethal as ammonia. (detoxifies ammonia not side products, or degradation products) I think I would pick the lesser of the two evils. This is part of the case to the general audience as well.

Nor have we addressed the fact that Seachem tells us to use their ammonia detecting film to observe Prime working except it shows Prime not working
Since you pointed this out I may see why you think this. On your test other thread it is working. Example binds it, then doesn't read on strips. It is how you interpret "working". Its working until x amount then you see ammonia on strips, add more? I do think it would be valuable to test seneye. That is if you used this device to verify findings on 1st test.
addressed the fact that these films measure free ammonia concentrations that match concentrations calculated from the total ammonia
They do claim it measures both nh3 and nh4.
 

taricha

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
6,484
Reaction score
9,996
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
A few points maybe worthwhile to clarify. (or maybe not :) )

I said 1.5mg/L ammonia-N, if bound by the proposed Prime mechanism would make ~1.5 mg/L N in sulfamate.
That is sort of wrong too it would be less than 1.5mg.
please tell me according to Randy's mechanism how much would it be then? That might help me understand what amounts of sulfamate you think are relevant.

S306-- + 2NH3 = S203-- + SO3NH2- + NH4+
If Randy is saying somewhere that the rapid NH3/NH4 equilibrium stops, then I missed it. Otherwise, as you react NH3, then there is still a huge pool of NH4 that is constantly replacing it, so you end up having to react most of the total ammonia, (and put the N into sulfamate) to substantially lower NH3.

If @Randy Holmes-Farley 's mechanism is something else - that you only have to react the tiny % that starts out as NH3, and NH4/NH3 equilibrium stops, then it would be necessary to know that to test it.




The reason for even testing this was to show 1: It doesn't stay as sulfamic acid. 2: It may the ingredient or it may be an intermediate. 3: Also to show how it can bind to organics.
1) & 3) where was this demonstrated? please link. I haven't seen anything that shows this.
2) as previously stated, that's not Randy's proposed mechanism, it's just what you say.
Just to be clear, sulfamic aicd is the proposed product of ammonia reacting with the unknown Prime ingredient, it is not proposed as the Prime ingredient itself.



That this test could be putting SO3 groups onto salicylate if over amount voids how we see the color. Now you see why maybe important?
Again, since the effect with sulfamate on the tests (salicylate, and NH3-sensing disks/films) is not similar to the effect of Prime+ammonia on the tests, then no - this is not relevant to Prime - even if it were hypothetically true about sulfamate.


Direct evidence in your test only show inverts with a over 1 year old bottle of prime.
This is incorrect. Dan and I used new Prime for the tests. The pic I posed of the black spots was an older bottle not used in any tests I posted. Please link otherwise. (besides, Prime says it's fine at 1yr+ "No, as long as Prime® has been stored properly, it will last indefinitely.")

They do claim it [seachem disks] measures both nh3 and nh4.
Incorrect. It only measures NH4 if you add a drop of the high pH "total ammonia test" additive. otherwise, NH3 only.

If you got one of these Seachem ammonia tests and a bottle of Prime, it would really cut down on the confusion.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
A few points maybe worthwhile to clarify. (or maybe not :) )

I said 1.5mg/L ammonia-N, if bound by the proposed Prime mechanism would make ~1.5 mg/L N in sulfamate.

please tell me according to Randy's mechanism how much would it be then? That might help me understand what amounts of sulfamate you think are relevant.


If Randy is saying somewhere that the rapid NH3/NH4 equilibrium stops, then I missed it. Otherwise, as you react NH3, then there is still a huge pool of NH4 that is constantly replacing it, so you end up having to react most of the total ammonia, (and put the N into sulfamate) to substantially lower NH3.

If @Randy Holmes-Farley 's mechanism is something else - that you only have to react the tiny % that starts out as NH3, and NH4/NH3 equilibrium stops, then it would be necessary to know that to test it.





1) & 3) where was this demonstrated? please link. I haven't seen anything that shows this.
2) as previously stated, that's not Randy's proposed mechanism, it's just what you say.





Again, since the effect with sulfamate on the tests (salicylate, and NH3-sensing disks/films) is not similar to the effect of Prime+ammonia on the tests, then no - this is not relevant to Prime - even if it were hypothetically true about sulfamate.



This is incorrect. Dan and I used new Prime for the tests. The pic I posed of the black spots was an older bottle not used in any tests I posted. Please link otherwise. (besides, Prime says it's fine at 1yr+ "No, as long as Prime® has been stored properly, it will last indefinitely.")


Incorrect. It only measures NH4 if you add a drop of the high pH "total ammonia test" additive. otherwise, NH3 only.

If you got one of these Seachem ammonia tests and a bottle of Prime, it would really cut down on the confusion.
I was reading the patent of another ammonia remover. It contained quite a bit of data. It was instructive to see the leap between data to claims. The data covered free ammonia ranges of 0.5-2.0 ppm. That is free, not total ammonia. The product effectiveness appears to peter out below below 0.5 ppm free ammonia or about 5 ppm total ammonia. Also, there is only a reduction of ammonia not a neutralization which occurs with hypochlorite. Here is an idea.

Prime might have been demonstrated to be effective at high free ammonia levels, but like this other product, peters out at 0.1’s of a ppm free ammonia a new aquarium might develop. so, while all the conjectures about reaction mechanisms might be reasonable, detectable ammonia reduction could still be absent.
 
Back
Top