Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[mojo8427]

Thought he said he’s not a chemist. I’ll go read again. Thanks

Ah ok, I understand. He sent them out to a lab for NMR analysis. I don't think he said which lab tho. Regardless, he seems a pretty competent chemist if he is or isn't by profession.

 

[Chrisv.]

Well if they aren't, I'm a molecular biologist. These always end up being multi-scientist threads.

 

[BrianAnthony]

This post just confirms my suspicions. I'm not going to add something to my tank without knowing how it gets it's results. If it really is bacteria that's going after my algae.. then I'll consider using it. Otherwise... I'll continue removing it by hand. I was always suspect with this product. Good luck to all.

 

[GARRIGA]

Ah ok, I understand. He sent them out to a lab for NMR analysis. I don't think he said which lab tho. Regardless, he seems a pretty competent chemist if he is or isn't by profession.

I don’t even know what NMR is. I’m just being cautious about claiming another violated the law. Latter because I’m not a lawyer.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think that the data in this thread is pretty clear. Certainly enough that if someone cared, they could easily initiate a discussion with the EPA. These rules are here for a reason and if they are mislabeling something in a way that violates federal law, that should not continue. People can choose to use or not use the product, but there are clear laws that control labels.

Personally I won't hesitate to use it in the future, but I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I do trust that if the EPA wants something labeled, they have a vested environmental reason to require it.

You may not be a scientist, but the person with the NMR, they are.

Then perhaps someone should contact the EPA. Seems enough care. Seems some have lost corals from its use. I’d rather be more cautious when interpreting data regardless of its source.

Know this much. I’m not using it unless more knowledge gained on exactly how to possibly use algaecides. Although assuming it is true this just overhyped Algaefix then I’d be using that instead.

 

[Seneca]

Well if they aren't, I'm a molecular biologist. These always end up being multi-scientist threads.

As am I. And I can read NMR results. They are clear and damning.

 

[Doctorgori]

Under this line of marketing you could re-label plain ole freshwater as a “bacterial” infused coral dip?

I’ve used Vibrant with good results all the while owning a big bottle of Algaefix for my pond, had one of my pet clams died as a result, I’m seeking “satisfaction”
….hope that stays inbound of the TOS

 

[mojo8427]

Under this line of marketing you could re-label plain ole freshwater as a “bacterial” infused coral dip?

I’ve used Vibrant with good results all the while owning a big bottle of Algaefix for my pond, had one of my pet clams died as a result, I’m seeking “satisfaction”
….hope that stays inbound of the TOS

"BUSAN 77 is used to control algae and mollusks such as Corbicula and Dreissena species."

Obviously different species but I'd imagine susceptibility isn't species dependent but more related to phylum or class.

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/001448-00042-20100406.pdf

 

[a.t.t.r]

Technically, doesn't say bacteria. Specifically says cultured bacteria blend. Therefore, could that mean bacteria was used to bind the algaecide? How they get around the deceptive marketing? Assuming it is deceptive. Saying latter because just like their claims it is all speculative but I’m not a lawyer. I’m sure there’s one amongst us that can hopefully clarify the distinction.

This doesn’t even match what is on the bottle btw. The bottle says “other” instead of rodi.

 

[MnFish1]

One POTENTIAL issue is the use of 'dried' material. Its clear (to my reading) - that there is an ingredient in Algeafix that is the same (or very similar to that in vibrant). What is not clear is whether this process quantitates the amount. I guess it wasn't clear from the original write-up. Perhaps it does - I dont know. I also don't know how bacterial spores would react under this process. I think I do - and I think the results show it - but I dont know.

One thing that seems very clear - there is a chemical in Algaefix that is similar/identical to Vibrant. Since we know whats in algaefix - it seems logical that the chemical is the in vibrant. To me the question is 'concentration'

 

[MnFish1]

So.. you add vinegar and amino acids in the mixture to appear as a food source for the bacteria and put it in a dark blue bottle to show you are filtering light for the bacteria inside. When there's no bacteria to begin with.. and call it proprietary Nice.

Except the analysis showed (that I can see) - EDIT - NO vinegar or amino acids either (I THINK that was the purpose of showing no peak in the aspartate range)

 

[jeffww]

there is no amino acids added *in appreciable amount* as the ftir would show a significant carbonyl peak. during drying before analysis vinegar is removed as it's volatile unless some base is added to make acetate salt.

 

[Doctorgori]

Well if they aren't, I'm a molecular biologist. These always end up being multi-scientist threads.

As am I. And I can read NMR results. They are clear and damning.

…. indeed,
….. go get em boys (or gals!)

 

[Ardeus]

Then perhaps someone should contact the EPA. Seems enough care. Seems some have lost corals from its use. I’d rather be more cautious when interpreting data regardless of its source.

Know this much. I’m not using it unless more knowledge gained on exactly how to possibly use algaecides. Although assuming it is true this just overhyped Algaefix then I’d be using that instead.

Not just corals

Is Vibrant trying to kill my lions

I've had these lions for over 7 years, there's also another one in this tank for 8 years. I had let my 210g go and it was riddled with algae, so i clean it up and dosed Vibrant, I was amazed. After 3 weeks the tank was so clean I have to start feeding my tangs greens again. I was so impressed I...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Seneca]

One POTENTIAL issue is the use of 'dried' material. Its clear (to my reading) - that there is an ingredient in Algeafix that is the same (or very similar to that in vibrant). What is not clear is whether this process quantitates the amount. I guess it wasn't clear from the original write-up. Perhaps it does - I dont know. I also don't know how bacterial spores would react under this process. I think I do - and I think the results show it - but I dont know.

If there were non negligible bacteria present they would both be likely killed by the substantial concentration of wide spectrum biocide identical to algaefix, and would show up on the NMR as a wide smear across the spectrum (as actual bacteria contain compounds of very many molecular weights/properties). That's not there.

There could be volitile compounds that would be lost through evaporation. Bacteria are not volitile.

 

[Chrisv.]

…. indeed,
….. go get em boys (or gals!)

Honestly not out to "get" anyone. I have used the stuff and actually had a pretty good experience. I have even recommended it in some cases. I used at half the advertised dose and had no casualties.

It's strange to me that people refer to the repacking and marketing of algae fix as being "snake oil." If anything, it's confirmation that there is an active ingredient. The idea that people don't want to add "chemicals" to their tank is odd. We add chemicals all the time. Just my take.

If there is a labeling noncompliance with the EPA that's a potential environmental concern, especially with regard to spills, etc.

Out of principle, I think mis labeling is not cool. I'd have preferred no ingredient label if it is not an EPA regulated substance, or an EPA compliant label.

Honestly the EPA should be the group reviewing this, not a bunch of forum members.

 

[moz71]

Honestly the EPA should be the group reviewing this, not a bunch of forum members.

Well when the EPA has done nothing yet and owner staying silent, it is good forum members are testing and doing what they can. Called freedom! Funny is I use it and will continue to uses it but have right to know what my fish and corals are drinking!!!!

 

[jeffww]

I’m happy that citizen science can come this far. It’s good for the hobby as a whole.

 

[Chrisv.]

I’m happy that citizen science can come this far. It’s good for the hobby as a whole.

It's freaking impressive. I am blown away by how scientific this hobby has become. ICP tests? Aquabiomics? Heck yes!

 

[Seneca]

It's strange to me that people refer to the repacking and marketing of algae fix as being "snake oil." If anything, it's confirmation that there is an active ingredient. The idea that people don't want to add "chemicals" to their tank is odd. We add chemicals all the time. Just my take.

If there is a labeling noncompliance with the EPA that's a potential environmental concern, especially with regard to spills, etc.

The problem in my mind has very little to do with the EPA. The problem is they lied to all of us for years about the fundemental nature of their product. That isn't "marketing".