Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[moz71]

It is pretty clear to me on the timing here of the new posters. UWC delays response, then put in some people to lay doubt, so they can prepare answers. In end we are not going to hear directly from UWC as I’m sure their lawyers are involved and need a legistic plan to deal with the situation. They are certainly not going to respond to this matter in a forum!!!

 

[Dan_P]

Really? You can't see why that might happen? People with a proven history and who have "dedicated so much of their time and resources to performing all of these assays" being trusted more than an interloper. You are right it's bizarre.

avidhexagrammid = DrZoidburg. Will say anything except the results might be correct.

Just checking on technical details of our Vibrant spokesperson. We have not been critical enough on their supposedly reasonable alternatives.

Your equation recalled the nonsense we had to deal with in the Prime investigation.

 

[jcolliii]

I think what they are suggesting (and I could be wrong) is that a shift in the peaks of the NMR of choline cl, when bonded to another molecule (like glycinate?) could produce an NMR whose peaks could exactly coincide with those of Algaefix and Vibrant. I would think that could be modeled using something like nmrdb.org...

 

[taricha]

Why do we jump in to comparing Vibrant with Api and luckily finding that they are the same.
Why is it that just Api and vibrant have been compared and NO other product on the market.

Hello, another new member who just wants to ask questions.
In case others have this question,
I start with the most compelling evidence because this thread is presented logically and not chronologically.
You can see my full progression of thought on Vibrant in the thread in the SPS forum by ScottB (and many in this thread already did).
I start on page 3 with the position that Vibrant seems to contain SW-culturable bacteria (literally defending against the accusation that it had no bacteria), but who knows if they are relevant, and I have no idea if it might also contain any algaecide. (my position at the time)

(ctl+F for taricha in the thread, if you just want to see my posts - and avoid lots of pointless chemistry bickering nonsense)
Over months and 20+ pages you can see the measurements made and how they shifted my position. You can also see that I screened every hobby bacterial product I could get my hands on - none had chemical similarities to Vibrant.
I also tested multiple different algaecide products that explicitly have the same label ingredient - polixetonium as Algaefix and found that they all reacted chemically in the same way as Vibrant & Algaefix and to a degree that reflected their varying concentration. (that info is featured in this thread too, Part 2, linked directly from 1st post.) Heck, you look hard enough in that thread, you'll even find where I compared a 60% polixetonium pool cleaner algaecide.
anyway... The most definitive tests are the professional ones and they chronologically came after I had taken the chemical tests about as far as my hands and (non-chemist brain) could go. After I got them back and saw that the ingredients were identical without additions, I worked out two more quantification methods to tighten up that the polyquat is present in the same amount.

(none of this is relevant to judging the data posted in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this thread, but curiosity of how we got here is a real thing)

 

[reef_ranch]

I'm not really interested in what does or doesn't do it for you, I don't owe you an explanation about who I am. Keep in mind that what you might perceive as too much effort is something that could be relatively simple for someone else. Some weird assumptions there, but they're yours to nurture I guess.

Yes, you do care because without credibility you won’t convince your audience that vibrant was created by a third party lab with cholines that just happen to match precisely the NMR of Algaefix. But you’ve failed to establish any credibility. (In no small part because you came in with predetermined conclusions — it isn’t the same compound as Algaefix and was likely created by a third party lab for UWC — and your timing fits perfectly with the impending UWC test reveal. My assumptions are shared by many reading this thread and they are reasonable and likely correct. Your continued vehemence and lack of candor about who you are, at least as to background without identifying information, only supports the assumptions.

 

[Dan_P]

I'm not really interested in what does or doesn't do it for you, I don't owe you an explanation about who I am. Keep in mind that what you might perceive as too much effort is something that could be relatively simple for someone else. Some weird assumptions there, but they're yours to nurture I guess.


You're free to dissect my comments and point out where I've misled you and caused you to question your reality using sinister means. Or perhaps it's time to lay off with this garbage and attack the my arguments instead of me. These dog-piling antics are counterproductive and, again, really just illustrate a pervasive lack of objectivity.


Nah, by definition, that's what it is. There have also been a variety of self declarations throughout this thread before I made my comment. Can I help you with anything else?


Make no mistake, the amount of time I spent doing a basic lit review is incredibly pale compared to the time and money spent doing these assays. So yeah, it's a pretty flimsy double standard.

If you are really and truly interested in discussing the @taricha investigation and the science behind it, start a conversation with him. If you are interested in a nice quiet debate on the merits of your idea, start an offline conversation with your opponents. You may find being “off stage” is a great place for such a conversation.

Hang up the gun belts and give it a try. There are potential friends around here.

 

[Dan_P]

Hello, another new member who just wants to ask questions.
In case others have this question,
I start with the most compelling evidence because this thread is presented logically and not chronologically.
You can see my full progression of thought on Vibrant in the thread in the SPS forum by ScottB (and many in this thread already did).
I start on page 3 with the position that Vibrant seems to contain SW-culturable bacteria (literally defending against the accusation that it had no bacteria), but who knows if they are relevant, and I have no idea if it might also contain any algaecide. (my position at the time)

(ctl+F for taricha in the thread, if you just want to see my posts - and avoid lots of pointless chemistry bickering nonsense)
Over months and 20+ pages you can see the measurements made and how they shifted my position. You can also see that I screened every hobby bacterial product I could get my hands on - none had chemical similarities to Vibrant.
I also tested multiple different algaecide products that explicitly have the same label ingredient - polixetonium as Algaefix and found that they all reacted chemically in the same way as Vibrant & Algaefix and to a degree that reflected their varying concentration. (that info is featured in this thread too, Part 2, linked directly from 1st post.) Heck, you look hard enough in that thread, you'll even find where I compared a 60% polixetonium pool cleaner algaecide.
anyway... The most definitive tests are the professional ones and they chronologically came after I had taken the chemical tests about as far as my hands and (non-chemist brain) could go. After I got them back and saw that the ingredients were identical without additions, I worked out two more quantification methods to tighten up that the polyquat is present in the same amount.

(none of this is relevant to judging the data posted in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this thread, but curiosity of how we got here is a real thing)

Thanks for this.

Vibrant is a big topic with a long history.

 

[Dan_P]

Yes, you do care because without credibility you won’t convince your audience that vibrant was created by a third party lab with cholines that just happen to match precisely the NMR of Algaefix. But you’ve failed to establish any credibility. (In no small part because you came in with predetermined conclusions — it isn’t the same compound as Algaefix and was likely created by a third party lab for UWC — and your timing fits perfectly with the impending UWC test reveal. My assumptions are shared by many reading this thread and they are reasonable and likely correct. Your continued vehemence and lack of candor about who you are, at least as to background without identifying information, only supports the assumptions.

Thanks for this.

 

[Dan_P]

Choline-based ionic liquids do not have any useful algaecidal activity for aquaria. The papers you mentioned (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117288) use 50% by weight of the choline ionic liquids to kill algae. Now, that is a lot choline! For a 100 gallon aquarium, this would require about 50 gallons of your choline ionic liquids, which would kill everything.

The NMR spectra of choline are very simple and do not match the NMR from Vibrant. Yes, choline has a counteranion to balance the charge in the ionic liquid. The paper you cite uses diphenylalanine, which would give up to 14 additional carbon signals. As you can see, the 13C NMR spectra of Vibrant has 4 large signals with peaks with peaks at 52, 57, 64 and 65 ppm that correspond almost precisely with the predicted chemical shifts of polixetonium chloride (ChemDraw version 20.1 from Perkin Elmer). Moreover, the peak size of the chemical shift at 52 ppm corresponds to the 4 methyl groups and is predicted to be about twice the intensity of the other carbon peaks (that each represent 2 carbons). As you can from the NMR on the first post, the peak at 52 ppm is about twice the size of the other peaks. Taken together with the 1H NMR and IR data, I think the data is pretty compelling. The NMR has been independently confirmed by another member as well.

Thanks. I was just mulling over whether I had time and enough interest to do something like this.

Question, what do you think the half life of such compounds would be in an aquarium? Similar to other polyquats, undigestible by bacteria?

 

[Jeffcb]

LFS took it off the shelf. He is going to use it for shop use lol, incase they quit selling it .

 

[Courtney Aldrich]

Thanks. I was just mulling over whether I had time and enough interest to do something like this.

Question, what do you think the half life of such compounds would be in an aquarium? Similar to other polyquats, undigestible by bacteria?

I would expect choline would be rapidly metabolized by anaerobic bacteria. Here's a nice paper from Emily Balskus' group at Harvard on bacterial choline metabolism (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 Dec 26;109(52):21307-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215689109).

 

[Dan_P]

I would expect choline would be rapidly metabolized by anaerobic bacteria. Here's a nice paper from Emily Balskus' group at Harvard on bacterial choline metabolism (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 Dec 26;109(52):21307-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215689109).

You’re wonderful, thanks. Dan

 

[Sean Clark]

Maybe they could put some of that bacteria in the bottle, just incase it is not already in your tank.

 

[MnFish1]

I did notice MnFish1 hasn’t been posting

LOL - I've been reading - you all frankly sound kind of fixated - including the new poster. I'm just patiently waiting for the results - which is what most of you should probably be doing. If there are no results - we have our answer. I've already stated my conclusion - that it appears that Vibrant contains a similar ingredient as algaefix. There is nothing more to say. I am not an NMR or FTIR expert by any stretch of the imagination - so I have to believe who I know. I believe what @Randy Holmes-Farley has said - and I've repeated it numerous times. Maybe you might consider stopping posts with somewhat sarcastic smiley faces - in an attempt to hide an obvious insult to me - and just come out and say what you mean. I think many of the comments here demean the forum. I have stepped back from the 'debate' - but because you decided to make your silly (IMHO) response to another poster - I decided to bite.

BTW - I have no idea what is right or what is wrong. Taricha has done science. The NMR people have done the science. The new poster is posting science. The rest of the piling on - that seems to occur here - demeans the forum - again IMHO.

 

[MnFish1]

If you are really and truly interested in discussing the @taricha investigation and the science behind it, start a conversation with him. If you are interested in a nice quiet debate on the merits of your idea, start an offline conversation with your opponents. You may find being “off stage” is a great place for such a conversation.

Hang up the gun belts and give it a try. There are potential friends around here.

Perhaps - it would behoove Taricha - to (as suggested multiple threads ago). to summarize his information into the Experiment section - with his hypothesis, methods, and etc - rather than multiple threads - I think that woudl be quite helpful to those who have not been able to read the multiple threads that have been started in this topic.

 

[Theawkwarding]

Hello, another new member who just wants to ask questions.
In case others have this question,
I start with the most compelling evidence because this thread is presented logically and not chronologically.
You can see my full progression of thought on Vibrant in the thread in the SPS forum by ScottB (and many in this thread already did).
I start on page 3 with the position that Vibrant seems to contain SW-culturable bacteria (literally defending against the accusation that it had no bacteria), but who knows if they are relevant, and I have no idea if it might also contain any algaecide. (my position at the time)

(ctl+F for taricha in the thread, if you just want to see my posts - and avoid lots of pointless chemistry bickering nonsense)
Over months and 20+ pages you can see the measurements made and how they shifted my position. You can also see that I screened every hobby bacterial product I could get my hands on - none had chemical similarities to Vibrant.
I also tested multiple different algaecide products that explicitly have the same label ingredient - polixetonium as Algaefix and found that they all reacted chemically in the same way as Vibrant & Algaefix and to a degree that reflected their varying concentration. (that info is featured in this thread too, Part 2, linked directly from 1st post.) Heck, you look hard enough in that thread, you'll even find where I compared a 60% polixetonium pool cleaner algaecide.
anyway... The most definitive tests are the professional ones and they chronologically came after I had taken the chemical tests about as far as my hands and (non-chemist brain) could go. After I got them back and saw that the ingredients were identical without additions, I worked out two more quantification methods to tighten up that the polyquat is present in the same amount.

(none of this is relevant to judging the data posted in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this thread, but curiosity of how we got here is a real thing)

Thank you for taking the time to direct me to the information rather than saying go look for it within hundreds of posts of bickering and ego boosting.
It's much appreciated and makes a huge difference.

 

[jda]

Anybody who is denying an exact substance match that is confirmed by the best that we have to offer in this hobby needs to expect a bit of grief. Maybe not more than a bit, but at least some. Coming in with their own testing, NMR results for whatever other substance that they believe to be correct could remove most of this.

I have said this before, but in the circular nature of the internet where everybody thinks that they are important and wants things spelled out for them, we are not in the guessing phase. We know what we are dealing with. If you want to propose something else, you missed the guessing phase, so now you need your own proof.

 

[taricha]

I would expect choline would be rapidly metabolized by anaerobic bacteria. Here's a nice paper from Emily Balskus' group at Harvard on bacterial choline metabolism (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 Dec 26;109(52):21307-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215689109).

another paper here: Evaluation of Toxicity and Biodegradability of Cholinium Amino Acids Ionic Liquids

"Additionally, the [Ch][AA] ILs displayed low toxicity toward the bacteria tested. Furthermore, the biodegradability of the [Ch][AA] ILs was evaluated via the closed bottle and CO2 headspace tests using wastewater microorganisms. All the ILs were classified as ‘readily biodegradable’ based on their high levels of mineralization (62-87%)."


The data I posted in Part 3 k) appears inconsistent with the presence of any "readily biodegradable" compounds as being significant components of Vibrant (or Algaefix)

K. Chemical and Bacterial Digestibility
In order to look for organics without losing any volatiles as could have occurred in the drying preparation for the professional lab tests in part 1, I did COD and BOD tests. COD is chemical oxygen demand - that tests the amount of organic material by heated acidic digestion with a strong oxidizer. It will measure essentially all organics, including in cells. BOD measures organics by determining the Oxygen consumed when bacteria etc are fed something.

This graph shows COD: Algaefix and Vibrant contain the same amount of chemically digestible material. The yellow line represents the label organics that Vibrant claims. If it had those added to the same amount of polyquat as algaefix, then the lines for Algaefix and Vibrant would not agree as they do.

This graph shows the O2 consumed by aquarium water with either nothing, or 10x doses each of Algaefix, Vibrant, or the label organics claimed by Vibrant added. This data is in agreement with the polyquat being essentially indigestible, and the label amounts of aspartic acid claimed by Vibrant being absent. Vinegar at 0.5% (which is itself only ~5% acetic acid) is too tiny to be detected by this analysis.
These two measurements together do not support the possibility of significant organics in Vibrant either added to the polyquat as aspartic acid or other carbon dose, or as a significant amount of bacteria / bacterial product.

If 3 days and 10x Vibrant is insufficient, it would be really easy for myself or someone else (as @Dan_P implied) to replicate or with even a higher vibrant dose and/ or longer digestion period to nail down tighter how totally indigestible Vibrant really is.

(aside: I'll simply note that the user who joined last Sunday "to ask questions" dismissed this info twice, first asserting that they already "read all the posts" and then that the section containing this test directly relevant to their hypothesis did "not add to anything except a snowballing confirmation bias" which is part of why I doubt they are on the level.)

Of course, as RHF has explained repeatedly, the chemical testing is not nearly as definitive as the 1H and 13C NMR that has now been separately replicated by @jda , but still it examines properties that allow us to conclude what is and isn't likely to be a significant component of Vibrant.

 

[workhz]

Hey guys. I’ve read every 23rd post. Are you sure it’s not ovaltine? I don’t think you’ve presented any proof that it’s not so shame on you for not keeping an open mind. Thanks.

 

[Coinzmans Reef]

Thinking Vibarant was bacteria culture I gave it to my daughter to cycle her fresh water 14 gallon tank. One week in her fish was dead just stopped eating and died, all water parameters were fine.
The fish was a one year old Betta. We were transferring it from college to home
(one tank to another with no live bacteria) Just makes me wonder, this fish has been thru the ringer over the last year. she has gone back and forth to school, winter break and so on never a problem till she added the Vibrant. Sorry for the tangent just thinking out loud.