Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[fulltang]

That's my current opinion, yes. That presence of certain organics in the water can dramatically alter how much of the polyquat is bound by soluble material and how much makes it to surfaces to kill algae.

What if you were to apply a dilution of vibrant directly to the algae outside of the water, and then place the rock back in the tank after a period of time?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What if you were to apply a dilution of vibrant directly to the algae outside of the water, and then place the rock back in the tank after a period of time?

The risks of that are obviously far lower since you will not transfer much of it back to the tank, but that method could also be used with alternatives such as hydrogen peroxide.

 

[LeftyReefer]

What if you were to apply a dilution of vibrant directly to the algae outside of the water, and then place the rock back in the tank after a period of time?

dip your rocks in a bucket of vibrant dosed water, then replace the rocks to your tank....

 

[Dan_P]

of course you did
I'm gonna guess you lowered the SDS amount to get it working in cleaner water.

OK, here is the raw data and calibration curves. I expressed the amount of SDS as mL’s of 10% since your initial work used 0.5 mL 10% SDS, although I used 1% SDS in the experiment. I added RODI water to the sample to maintain a constant volume as I varied SDS amounts.

The calibration curves are Color of Water PCU‘s v the multiple of recommended dose of Vibrant (linear and non-linear types). I can detect 1.5X the recommended dose of Vibrant but not much lower. This should be good enough to investigate concentration behavior.

 

[MnFish1]

I pretty wary to accept that this graph implies long term stability of vibrant in a reef aquarium. I'd want to see data on more aquariums without vibrant use ever to see what sort of natural issues might replicate this graph.

One interpretation is that it disappears with a half life of a couple of days, and the effects from days 6 to 20 are other processes.

Unless pool algaecide makers are trying to kill multiple people - they recommend re-dosing every so many days, Because. it decomposes - is bound - Right?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Unless pool algaecide makers are trying to kill multiple people - they recommend re-dosing every so many days, Because. it decomposes - is bound - Right?

It doesn’t decompose in ordinary settings, but it will bind stuff and become inactive.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, here is the raw data and calibration curves. I expressed the amount of SDS as mL’s of 10% since your initial work used 0.5 mL 10% SDS, although I used 1% SDS in the experiment. I added RODI water to the sample to maintain a constant volume as I varied SDS amounts.

The calibration curves are Color of Water PCU‘s v the multiple of recommended dose of Vibrant (linear and non-linear types). I can detect 1.5X the recommended dose of Vibrant but not much lower. This should be good enough to investigate concentration behavior.

Thanks for the info, Dan!

 

[jcolliii]

It's halfway through the second of the two potential days they said that their testing data would be released... any updates?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's halfway through the second of the two potential days they said that their testing data would be released... any updates?

I do not have an update and I've not asked them for one recently.

 

[Dan_P]

Some may find this interesting, but with all the caveats: Not everything important can be measured and just because something can be measured does not make it important.
Furthermore, I'm not 100% sure what is being measured here, but I think it's the combination of the vibrant ingredient + aquarium organics.

...it seems to stick around in water for quite a while - if you don't run GAC.
(red stars represent 1st vibrant dose on day zero, and 2nd vibrant dose on day 3 - each was broken into two half-doses.)
click through the below quote for the thread on the details.

You will have to excuse me for being a month of Sundays behind you

What do you think is going on after the day 3 dose where the concentration increases after day 6?

 

[jda]

Science folks... Is there anything else that needs NMR or IR tested? I am happy to pay for a bit more, but this should be all that we need, right?

 

[jcolliii]

For me, the 13C NMR is the nail in the coffin.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Science folks... Is there anything else that needs NMR or IR tested? I am happy to pay for a bit more, but this should be all that we need, right?

I don’t think we need more at this point, barring some sort of explanatory claim by UWC.

One thing I looked for and couldn’t find was a solution state NMR of bacteria in D2O. It will look dramatically different than what we have seen, but It would be an interesting comparator.

All I could find in the science literature was that sort of experiment using a special type of NMR (called solid state or magic angle spinning) which allows much better peak resolution of particulates like bacteria. Solution state likely just gives giant broad peaks, not the sharp ones you saw, but I’m not expert enough in NMR to know that with certainty.

 

[taricha]

You will have to excuse me for being a month of Sundays behind you

What do you think is going on after the day 3 dose where the concentration increases after day 6?

I've got 4 ideas. All could be wrong

1) after day 6, that represents the decay phase of some killed algae. The polymer attached to algal cells and those cells died and were broken down into either suspended or soluble bits that still hat the polymer attached (since the polymer isn't getting broken down) and the part of this material that is not well-skimmed stuck around.

2) similar argument but for attaching to material in biofilms that was later sloughed off / remineralized and went into the water that way.

3) polymer attached to aragonite, and at night my sandbed pH drops to aragonite buffer 7.5-6, so outside surfaces of aragonite are dissolved and material re-released.

4) Here's the really dumb one. On day 4.0 I made a sand storm to see if that cleared the Vibrant associated material from the water - It didn't. But maybe it resulted in more detectable material either by more organics in the water - increasing the "sensitivity multiplier" of the SDS method, or perhaps by re-releasing some of the polymer material from the earlier rounds of heavy Algaefix that I had halted months ago.

(details on the sand storm in below quote)

Observations and speculation on my tank data:

Again, my speculation is that since vibrant alone is undetectable in distilled or clean new Instant Ocean at these concentrations, I am guessing that the binding to organics allows a change in the manner of the combination with SDS (different size/shape/ratio etc) thus making more visible material.
This implies that what I'm detecting is mostly Vibrant that has already attached to some stuff and is still in the water. An interesting observation on that point is the red data around day 4 on the chart.
I created a sand storm by blowing a bunch of sandbed material into the water.


I measured again 2 hours later after it all had cleared (the red data in the above chart). Duplicate measures showed no major decrease in the value. This is consistent with the speculation that the material I'm measuring had already bound to stuff, because it did not attach to and get removed by the skimmed / sinking sandbed material.
To go really out on a limb of speculation, if this material is already bound when it hits and mixes with my high organics water, then little of it might be available to attach to the target algae. This would be consistent with my tank history with algaefix. Months ago I dosed every 3 days, (sometimes every 2 days - overdose) for weeks and weeks and the decrease in GHA was very slow. It's possible most of it was binding with other targets in the water before meeting my GHA.
I would speculate further that if I had run GAC or done a bunch of water changes, causing my tank water to have less organics, then the algaefix might have attached more to the target algae.

I think the timing of the increase from day 6 forward favors guesses 1 or 2, but yeah. hard to nail that one down.

 

[Dan_P]

I've got 4 ideas. All could be wrong

1) after day 6, that represents the decay phase of some killed algae. The polymer attached to algal cells and those cells died and were broken down into either suspended or soluble bits that still hat the polymer attached (since the polymer isn't getting broken down) and the part of this material that is not well-skimmed stuck around.

2) similar argument but for attaching to material in biofilms that was later sloughed off / remineralized and went into the water that way.

3) polymer attached to aragonite, and at night my sandbed pH drops to aragonite buffer 7.5-6, so outside surfaces of aragonite are dissolved and material re-released.

4) Here's the really dumb one. On day 4.0 I made a sand storm to see if that cleared the Vibrant associated material from the water - It didn't. But maybe it resulted in more detectable material either by more organics in the water - increasing the "sensitivity multiplier" of the SDS method, or perhaps by re-releasing some of the polymer material from the earlier rounds of heavy Algaefix that I had halted months ago.

(details on the sand storm in below quote)


I think the timing of the increase from day 6 forward favors guesses 1 or 2, but yeah. hard to nail that one down.

I do like the notion of Vibrant reappearing at near full strength just about the time some eager aquarists wants to re-dose Vibrant. Just think how this spike might snowball over multiple doses.

More work to do before we understand this chemical. I have four different water samples dosed with Vibrant sitting on my lab bench. At 24 hours I make the final measurement in this exploratory experiment.

Thanks.

Dan

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I have written to UWC asking if they intend to respond.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I have written to UWC asking if they intend to respond.

Response will be delayed. Jeff (owner of UWC) intended to respond yesterday, but the EPA and Mn Department of Agriculture arrived at UWC yesterday for a "for cause" inspection. I am told they were there all day yesterday and plan to be there again today.

FWIW, I saw a picture of the first page of the official EPA notice as proof.

 

[Eagle_Steve]

Response will be delayed. Jeff (owner of UWC) intended to respond yesterday, but the EPA and Mn Department of Agriculture arrived at UWC yesterday for a "for cause" inspection. I am told they were there all day yesterday and plan to be there again today.

FWIW, I saw a picture of the first page of the official EPA notice as proof.

Wow.

While all has been delayed a few times already, I will say that having them show up for an inspection is an acceptable excuse to not hop on a PC and make a post.

 

[taricha]

I do like the notion of Vibrant reappearing at near full strength just about the time some eager aquarists wants to re-dose Vibrant. Just think how this spike might snowball over multiple doses.

To be clear, my interpretation is that when it goes in to the tank, it's in its most potent form - not bound to anything, and very different than when I detect it later.
When I measure vibrant-associated-material a week or two later, it's got to have found some stuff to attach to. Thus it would be much less potent - if at all.

I'd dismiss this water-lingering material entirely if it weren't for the fact that when I did week after week of algaefix every 3 days, I stopped once I noticed effects on shrimp. Then over the next few weeks I saw multiple other classes of inverts react poorly. (doesn't exclude the possibility it was just the accumulated effect from weeks of additions, and maybe the lingering material in the water didn't actually bother inverts)

 

[jda]

A local lost urchins that were decades-in-captivity after using Vibrant - pincushions. Perhaps a coincidence, but maybe not. They could have not only bound the QAC directly, but also ate algae with the QAC bound? In any case, something to keep in the back of an inquiring mind.