Possible Mechanism for Seachem Prime Detoxification of Ammonia

[taricha]

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.

Yeah, that hypothetical would sort of remove things from the realm of the reef hobby and into aquaculture.

 

[taricha]

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.

Did you see any indication (in the patent for this other product) that raising the pH to ~9.4+ (50+% NH3) might move the effect from theoretical to observable? Or would that break things in other ways?

 

[AquariumScience]

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.

Please provide us with the number of the patent. I would very much like to read it.

 

[Dan_P]

Did you see any indication (in the patent for this other product) that raising the pH to ~9.4+ (50+% NH3) might move the effect from theoretical to observable? Or would that break things in other ways?

The higher pH experiments consumed more ammonia. Reaction times were 6 hours. I plan on reproducing the patent experiment.

 

[Dan_P]

Please provide us with the number of the patent. I would very much like to read it.

Enjoy!

 

[MnFish1]

I do not get this debate (beyond the original post). The issue to me is not how Prime works with various test kits, and then using the test kits to prove or disprove that Prime 'works'.

The way (IMHO) to test it is to (as someone mentioned earlier) - Do an in vivo test. This is much easier than trying to interpret ammonia test kit chemistry. The question (to me) is does Prime work. Do the experiment: 1. There are numerous papers out there showing what a toxic level of ammonia is. 2. There are also numerous papers that show the symptoms of high ammonia. 3. To avoid hurting fish, Add ammonia at a level that should cause symptoms - but not death. 4. In Tank 1 have plain Saltwater (a control), in Tank 2 have what should be a toxic but not lethal level of ammonia, In tank 3 add the same level of ammonia as tank 2 - but add Prime according to directions. Drop in 3 fish into each tank. Monitor for distress and compare the results. Theoretically, if Prime detoxifies ammonia, there will be little or no difference between tank 1 and 3 and distress evident in tank 2. Remove the fish if there is distress. NOTE - for all of the activists out there - this is designed to NOT harm the fish.

All the chemistry aside, it is very possible that the posted threads showing x level of ammonia with prime or an alert badge/multiple different tests may not have the correct science behind them. The important thing (to me) seems to be - can fish be helped with it not whether Test A or B or C reads it correctly.

 

[Dan_P]

I do not get this debate (beyond the original post). The issue to me is not how Prime works with various test kits, and then using the test kits to prove or disprove that Prime 'works'.

The way (IMHO) to test it is to (as someone mentioned earlier) - Do an in vivo test. This is much easier than trying to interpret ammonia test kit chemistry. The question (to me) is does Prime work. Do the experiment: 1. There are numerous papers out there showing what a toxic level of ammonia is. 2. There are also numerous papers that show the symptoms of high ammonia. 3. To avoid hurting fish, Add ammonia at a level that should cause symptoms - but not death. 4. In Tank 1 have plain Saltwater (a control), in Tank 2 have what should be a toxic but not lethal level of ammonia, In tank 3 add the same level of ammonia as tank 2 - but add Prime according to directions. Drop in 3 fish into each tank. Monitor for distress and compare the results. Theoretically, if Prime detoxifies ammonia, there will be little or no difference between tank 1 and 3 and distress evident in tank 2. Remove the fish if there is distress. NOTE - for all of the activists out there - this is designed to NOT harm the fish.

All the chemistry aside, it is very possible that the posted threads showing x level of ammonia with prime or an alert badge/multiple different tests may not have the correct science behind them. The important thing (to me) seems to be - can fish be helped with it not whether Test A or B or C reads it correctly

Thanks for the idea. It is a reasonable suggestion.

I will probably stick to chemistry because a relatively large number of fish are needed to produce statistically significant results, and personally, I prefer not to experiment on animals

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

All the chemistry aside, it is very possible that the posted threads showing x level of ammonia with prime or an alert badge/multiple different tests may not have the correct science behind them. The important thing (to me) seems to be - can fish be helped with it not whether Test A or B or C reads it correctly.

I agree that the questions of whether Prime "works" to save fish from ammonia and assuming it does, how does it do so, are different but related questions.

Both are important, IMO. The main reason for this specific thread was to delve into the how, not the "if".

 

[brandon429]

MN I too had suggested a fish inclusive testing setup once to Dan. My rationale was risk one for the benefit of many to both see the mechanism tested but also tie behavioral changes if any in the fish. The suggestion wasn’t for prime study it was for nh3 tolerance studies, the point was I’d voted for a fish-in review.

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks for the idea. It is a reasonable suggestion.

I will probably stick to chemistry because a relatively large number of fish are needed to produce statistically significant results, and personally, I prefer not to experiment on animals

I would strongly guess, that these experiments have been done by Seachem (and other manufacturers of Ammonia detoxifying agents). I guess I don't see any evidence to support what is being said (if I'm reading multiple posts correctly) that 'Prime does not work', based on the behaviors of various test kits. There are any number of confounding reasons why these experiments may not 'show' what it seems you're trying to say.

I get the issue about 'not using animals' - EXCEPT - people do this experiment every day when they have a problem with ammonia and it helps. PS - I do not think you would need to have large numbers of fish to do the experiment - I mean the goal is not to publish it. Or am I incorrect?

 

[MnFish1]

I agree that the questions of whether Prime "works" to save fish from ammonia and assuming it does, how does it do so, are different but related questions.

Both are important, IMO. The main reason for this specific thread was to delve into the how, not the "if".

Agreed - Thats why I said/implied in my response that aside from the OP (Yours) - I didn't get where this thread was going. I didn't mean to hijack things more. I am not sure that the many experiments with the test kits, etc that are being discussed help to determine 'how' Prime works.

 

[taricha]

@MnFish1 apologies if you saw this already. Here's where I did this on amphipods.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/post-9255171

Prime seemed to make no difference.
Some found this persuasive, others did not.
That is as far as I'm willing to go down that road, since I'm pretty convinced it offers no protection.
(this is a hobby forum for people who love fish, and thus it probably has different standards than a purely scientific community.)

 

[Dan_P]

I would strongly guess, that these experiments have been done by Seachem (and other manufacturers of Ammonia detoxifying agents). I guess I don't see any evidence to support what is being said (if I'm reading multiple posts correctly) that 'Prime does not work', based on the behaviors of various test kits. There are any number of confounding reasons why these experiments may not 'show' what it seems you're trying to say.

I get the issue about 'not using animals' - EXCEPT - people do this experiment every day when they have a problem with ammonia and it helps. PS - I do not think you would need to have large numbers of fish to do the experiment - I mean the goal is not to publish it. Or am I incorrect?

If Seachem or any manufacturer has solid data demonstrating the effectiveness of their product, it would be featured prominently in their advertising.

Good scientific data is expensive to obtain and if your customers are not very discerning, unsubstantiated claims and testimonials are sufficient to stay in the market. You can see this behavior across most products in this hobby.

We have conducted simple but technically sound experiments that anyone one on this forum can reproduce. No one has come up with any obvious reasons for our tests being invalid, though we continue to try to prove ourselves wrong. The results are straightforward: Prime does not reduce the ammonia concentration in seawater. And if ammonia concentrations are not reduced, Prime cannot be “detoxifying“ ammonia. Again, not complicated.

What about all those testimonials about “Prime saved my fish”? They are no more admissible as data as the claim “I saw Bigfoot”.

We are not the first to point out to aquarium hobbyists that Prime does not detoxify ammonia. This observation does not validate our results, but stimulates the question why do you still believe Prime works. For me, I don’t care if it works or not. I bought it to clear ammonia in synthetic seawater for experiments. It didn’t. It wasted my time and research dollars. I mysteriously became interested in why it did not work. And here we are today, @taricha and I sharing our findings and how we did it and listening to everyone’s ideas why we might be wrong.

 

[threebuoys]

If anecdotally users of the product say it works, but no one is able to measure ammonia effectively to determine it was at toxic levels before adding the product how can you be confident the fish lived because of Prime. And just what are the toxic levels if pH, temp etc are not factored in. Much the same as someone saying an observation quarantine works or TTM works, etc. to combat crypto for new purchases. If the fish didn't have crypto in the first place how can you confidently say your treatment worked? Hobbyists need to be able to rely of information from independent third party experts and not just whichever forum participant is most vocal and eloquent in the debate.

My guess is most testimonials are by hobbyists who don't have the ability or desire to delve into the science. If the product manufacturer says it works, why should they believe it? If a hobbyist unsuccessfully uses the product how can he argue when the manufacturer say the fishes' death was due to other variables, not ammonia?

I agree if a vendor has conducted scientific analysis to confirm its product works as marketed, why would he not want the world to know it, and know how to prove it independently? Surely everyone would want to keep such products on hand. Sales would skyrocket.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 apologies if you saw this already. Here's where I did this on amphipods.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/post-9255171

Prime seemed to make no difference.
Some found this persuasive, others did not.
That is as far as I'm willing to go down that road, since I'm pretty convinced it offers no protection.
(this is a hobby forum for people who love fish, and thus it probably has different standards than a purely scientific community.)

Applause for doing the study (no I hadn't seen it). Unfortunately, I do not think you can say that Prime offers 'no protection' - or frankly - anything about Prime at all, the reason being 1. The ammonia concentration being used is high. 2. The dose of Prime is LIKELY recommended to deal with levels seen in a tank as compared to your experiment - with additionally a fairly high pH. These levels would not be seen in a tank. I apologize its a little hard to see exactly what concentrations of prime you used - but in your write up you said 'according to directions' - So I'm assuming you used standard doses of Prime for much higher than normal levels of ammonia. In other words, for a higher level of ammonia, you would need a higher amount of Prime. For example - according to the instructions: "A: If your ammonia or nitrite levels are above 2 ppm, you can safely use up to 5 x the recommended amount." Again - perhaps I understood the results.

 

[MnFish1]

If Seachem or any manufacturer has solid data demonstrating the effectiveness of their product, it would be featured prominently in their advertising.

Good scientific data is expensive to obtain and if your customers are not very discerning, unsubstantiated claims and testimonials are sufficient to stay in the market. You can see this behavior across most products in this hobby.

We have conducted simple but technically sound experiments that anyone one on this forum can reproduce. No one has come up with any obvious reasons for our tests being invalid, though we continue to try to prove ourselves wrong. The results are straightforward: Prime does not reduce the ammonia concentration in seawater. And if ammonia concentrations are not reduced, Prime cannot be “detoxifying“ ammonia. Again, not complicated.

What about all those testimonials about “Prime saved my fish”? They are no more admissible as data as the claim “I saw Bigfoot”.

We are not the first to point out to aquarium hobbyists that Prime does not detoxify ammonia. This observation does not validate our results, but stimulates the question why do you still believe Prime works. For me, I don’t care if it works or not. I bought it to clear ammonia in synthetic seawater for experiments. It didn’t. It wasted my time and research dollars. I mysteriously became interested in why it did not work. And here we are today, @taricha and I sharing our findings and how we did it and listening to everyone’s ideas why we might be wrong.

First of all I applaud you for doing the experiment. Second - you didn't prove 'Prime didn't work', because the way I read the experiment, you did not use it according to what would happen in a tank. The pH was high, the ammonia levels were quite high, the dose of Prime was not adjusted. The fact that ammonia is or is not seen on a test does not mean 'Prime does not work'. Whats odd to me - is that many people on this site say 'anecdotal evidence is just as important as a scientific experiment'. But - in this case, somehow - anecdotal evidence is the same as someone claiming to see Bigfoot?

IMHO, if a hobbyist is going to be test a product, test it according to instructions.

If you think Seachem just threw some chemicals into a bottle and then said 'wow its a miracle cure' without any testing, I think you're not using logical thinking. But on Seachem's website, they did mention some of the testing they did - and much like your results - they state they do not know the exact mechanism of some of the actions (ie. effects on nitrite and nitrate) completely.

So - I know this sounds 'critical' - its not meant to be and you could very well be correct - Prime might not work. The point I was making is this data does not show that. (Disclaimer - I have never used Prime, I use a different brand of water conditioner - for freshwater).

 

[MnFish1]

If anecdotally users of the product say it works, but no one is able to measure ammonia effectively to determine it was at toxic levels before adding the product how can you be confident the fish lived because of Prime. And just what are the toxic levels if pH, temp etc are not factored in. Much the same as someone saying an observation quarantine works or TTM works, etc. to combat crypto for new purchases. If the fish didn't have crypto in the first place how can you confidently say your treatment worked? Hobbyists need to be able to rely of information from independent third party experts and not just whichever forum participant is most vocal and eloquent in the debate.

My guess is most testimonials are by hobbyists who don't have the ability or desire to delve into the science. If the product manufacturer says it works, why should they believe it? If a hobbyist unsuccessfully uses the product how can he argue when the manufacturer say the fishes' death was due to other variables, not ammonia?

I agree if a vendor has conducted scientific analysis to confirm its product works as marketed, why would he not want the world to know it, and know how to prove it independently? Surely everyone would want to keep such products on hand. Sales would skyrocket.

Same answer - why would a vendor just throw chemicals into a bottle that they did not test - and make claims? For example, Have you reviewed all of the animal studies done on shampoo to prove that if you use it your eyes won't fall out? Why do the companies not publish them?

 

[taricha]

Applause for doing the study (no I hadn't seen it)....

If you think Seachem just threw some chemicals into a bottle and then said 'wow its a miracle cure' without any testing, I think you're not using logical thinking.

I had a longer reply typed out, then I realized that literally nothing in this thread would make any sense without the context of the other one, and you seemingly found this one first.

Check the first post of the other thread and the post by Dan that it links to, so you can get a sense of how we got here.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/

 

[AquariumScience]

Please provide us with the number of the patent. I would very much like to read it.

Many thanks for the reference. I got a good laugh from this patent. The equation shown is:
SFB + NH3 = ???????

I've never seen question marks in an equation in a patent like this. Guess you can get by with almost anything in Europe. What the equation really reads is:

HO-CH2-SO3Na + NH3 = ???????

 

[MnFish1]

Many thanks for the reference. I got a good laugh from this patent. The equation shown is:
SFB + NH3 = ???????

I've never seen question marks in an equation in a patent like this. Guess you can get by with almost anything in Europe. What the equation really reads is:

HO-CH2-SO3Na + NH3 = ???????

Curious what is your agenda? I'm agnostic as to whether Prime works or not - but your blog certainly suggests it is worthless for ammonia? This reminds me of another thread months ago - about a chemical that purported to cure RTN.