Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[a.t.t.r]

Something from a science perspective does not make sense - UNLESS - not only the company being criticized, but algaefix, pool algaecide manufacturers, fish farmers, etc - according to research - they are totally involved in some sort of conspiracy. Every mention of the product (lets pretend Busan 77) - mentioned - recommends repeated dosing. If so - are all of us with pools putting our kids at risk? etc etc etc - name your application. IMHO - the testing you are doing now - in comparison to suggesting that Vibrant is similar to algaefix - has not been scientifically verified as to method, replicated, etc . Are you also suggesting NOW - just curious - that algaefix should not be used in a tank - because it accumulates? Based on the results. Forget Vibrant - You've decided that Vibrant and Algaefix are 'the same'. They also recommend multiple doses - as does my pool algaecide.

what are you talking about?

Plus it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that vibrant and algaefix are identical.

 

[MnFish1]

what are you talking about?

Plus it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that vibrant and algaefix are identical.

If you re-read my post with an open mind - I was not at all talking about 'vibrant'. I was talking about the chemical in algaefix and pool chemicals, etc etc - who all have EPA approval - and who all recommend (as far as I can see) repeated dosing. I don't care about vibrant. Did you get that message from me? I don't care whats in vibrant - that ship has sailed. I know whats in my pool algaecide (recommending every 5-7 day dosing) - I know whats in algaefix - which also recommending dosing every x days. I also read (maybe I'm misunderstanding) - that there is some research here suggesting that the chemical (the active chemical) accumulates. Was that your opinion?

EDIT - I see what in my post you're talking about. What I meant - was not that it wasn't documented that algaefix is similar to vibrant - BUT - I was trying to get the answer as to why research here seems to suggest accumulation of the chemical - whereas - multiple other EPA approved chemicals suggest similar dosing to vibrant. I apologize that it was unclear

 

[jcolliii]

It is my understanding that that is what the experiments and datalogging are being done to address. Whether Busan 77 accumulates, how long it might persist, and how it might be re-released from bound surfaces back into the watercolumn.

 

[MnFish1]

It is my understanding that that is what the experiments and datalogging are being done to address. Whether Busan 77 accumulates, how long it might persist, and how it might be re-released from bound surfaces back into the watercolumn.

Correct - my reading - perhaps incorrect - is that the experiments have shown accumulation - which goes against every recommended use of the product that I've seen (again - forget vibrant) - think pools, ponds, etc. The point being - I'm not sure the experiments as designed are measuring toxic levels or increasing levels of chemical. BUT I dont know - so I was asking from a chemistry standpoint. As I said before - this is not about vibrant - its about the chemical itself - and the EPA approved product Algaefix

 

[TheHarold]

UWC has not responded, either publicly or privately.

Consequently, Reef2Reef has temporarily suspended UWC as sponsor pending further resolution of the situation

Never mind, I think this was on my end.

It looks like they are going with the "Disappear" option. Their site is taken down: https://www.uwcmn.com

 

[Cell]

"The science doesn't make sense unless there is a conspiracy" is a funny way of asking if you are simply trying to educate yourself and not push an agenda.

 

[Cell]

It looks like they are going with the "Disappear" option. Their site is taken down: https://www.uwcmn.com

Lets just make sure to remember who was involved here...

The link works fine for me.

 

[Cnidoblast]

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?

Would flatworm exit be on the table for a 13C NMR or perhaps even a mass spec? As somebody who dabbles in parasitology it would be quite interesting to see what it is? Oxamniquine is my guess to what it is

 

[TheHarold]

The link works fine for me.

Nevermind, I am not sure why it stopped working for me. Tried a different browser and it opened.

 

[Malcontent]

The link works fine for me.

And for me. They still have Vibrant on their site.

 

[jda]

Would flatworm exit be on the table for a 13C NMR or perhaps even a mass spec? As somebody who dabbles in parasitology it would be quite interesting to see what it is?

Open another thread and link me to it - we should probably keep this one on track as much as possible. It is almost certainly Levamisole HCL. You can get it as Prohibit Livestock Dewormer. I was mostly talking about more tests for this substance, but I think that we are good.

 

[a.t.t.r]

If you re-read my post with an open mind - I was not at all talking about 'vibrant'. I was talking about the chemical in algaefix and pool chemicals, etc etc - who all have EPA approval - and who all recommend (as far as I can see) repeated dosing. I don't care about vibrant. Did you get that message from me? I don't care whats in vibrant - that ship has sailed. I know whats in my pool algaecide (recommending every 5-7 day dosing) - I know whats in algaefix - which also recommending dosing every x days. I also read (maybe I'm misunderstanding) - that there is some research here suggesting that the chemical (the active chemical) accumulates. Was that your opinion?

EDIT - I see what in my post you're talking about. What I meant - was not that it wasn't documented that algaefix is similar to vibrant - BUT - I was trying to get the answer as to why research here seems to suggest accumulation of the chemical - whereas - multiple other EPA approved chemicals suggest similar dosing to vibrant. I apologize that it was unclear

If it doesn’t readily break down rapidly it will accumulate however it could be bound to other chemicals and rendered useless requiring additional treatment. Who knows what could trigger a rerelease or if consumption of sediment with stuff bound to it could be an issue especially with filter feeders. Generally in a pool you are in it but not consuming it. Chemicals that are stable tend to flow up the food chain.
I think it is not a large concern but it is interesting.

Btw in your pool chlorine binds to nitrogen’s and becomes chloramine it is still there but not as useful and requires additional chlorine to break down (free vs total chlorine).

Btw I would like to point out vibrant does state to do water changes no matter what which seems like they KNOW something about a potential accumulation but are playing it off. I have yet to see any other chemical on the market make the same statement

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In a pool environment, the polymer may be removed by filtration methods of various sorts. I would not assume the active compound remains in an active form in the water column in any use we have considered without some test demonstrating that to be true.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here’s the current status:

R2R has chosen to suspend the sponsorship from UWC based based on the concerns surrounding one of their products. UWC responded to let us know they understood why we had to take this action, but that they do intend to respond and clear things up as soon as they are able to work through their audits and related challenges.

 

[MnFish1]

"The science doesn't make sense unless there is a conspiracy" is a funny way of asking if you are simply trying to educate yourself and not push an agenda.

Perhaps reread the post. The data presented here - do not agree with the EPA approved products. (I'm not talking about vibrant). And yes - I am pushing an agenda - honestly - that no one has vetted the procedures being used. IDK if they are right or wrong - BUT - my interpretation is that the summary is that "Busan 77" accumulates - yet every EPA product that I have seen recommends repeated dosing - So - That was 'my question'.

 

[ingchr1]

Perhaps reread the post. The data presented here - do not agree with the EPA approved products. (I'm not talking about vibrant). And yes - I am pushing an agenda - honestly - that no one has vetted the procedures being used. IDK if they are right or wrong - BUT - my interpretation is that the summary is that "Busan 77" accumulates - yet every EPA product that I have seen recommends repeated dosing - So - That was 'my question'.

Does repeat dose = does not accumulate?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Perhaps reread the post. The data presented here - do not agree with the EPA approved products. (I'm not talking about vibrant). And yes - I am pushing an agenda - honestly - that no one has vetted the procedures being used. IDK if they are right or wrong - BUT - my interpretation is that the summary is that "Busan 77" accumulates - yet every EPA product that I have seen recommends repeated dosing - So - That was 'my question'.

I do not think any data was presented on Busan 77 accumulation in any approved use of Busan 77.

I also do not know of any data or company statements that says it would or would not accumulate with repeated use.

Accumulation does not require the material that is accumulation to be still active as an algaecide.

 

[taricha]

Below quote is my current thinking on my attempt to measure this material in my tank water.
It's a longer and less-concise version of Randy's....
"I would not assume the active compound remains in an active form in the water column in any use we have considered without some test demonstrating that to be true."

It looks like ~a month to get back to within an error bar of zero.

This data can only plausibly apply to a tank with high organics, no GAC, few water changes etc.
@Dan_P data collection on cleaner water will be much more widely applicable.

My logging may be thought of as a bad-case scenario, an attempt to explain how undesirable outcomes might happen for some tanks, even then, I have no idea if what I'm measuring relates in any way to bad outcomes in tanks.

The caveats to this are almost too significant and too numerous to list...

1) I don't know for sure what I'm measuring. I'm increasingly leaning toward it being the vibrant polyquat bonded to organics in the water that are poorly skimmed. (but they are removed rapidly by GAC.)
2) the trends in clean water that Dan generates will look nothing like this, probably. So it has zero applicability to most systems.
3) I have no idea if what's detected is harmful at all. It's certainly much less potent than the un-bonded material. May be totally harmless, and merely of curiosity in the sense "where does this chemical end up?"
4) I don't know if some part of it is re-released material from algaefix use several months ago.
5) The material certainly has no noticeable long term suppression effect on algae in my system.
(other caveats I'm probably forgetting...)

 

[jda]

Just like the other stuff that you objected to with early QAC testing, it will all probably just sort it's self out if you wait for somebody to test something, the smart folks to weigh in, everybody iterates the tests and all of that... These folks seem pretty smart, the ones involved early with QAC testing were right on the money and now even more educated folks are engaged, so maybe a benefit of the doubt is earned? Maybe a little?

 

[MnFish1]

Does repeat dose = does not accumulate?

Sorry I dont understand the question