Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[MnFish1]

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.

Maybe I'm confused - I was under the impression that based on the findings - that the product accumulates - and - per a couple posters (not the researcher) - that it could accumulate to toxic levels. Since I use this every year in my pool per directions - I would like to know - from a chemistry perspective (there is no carbon etc taking stuff out of our pool FYI). My impression - based on my reading of the EPA document - is that though its called a 'pesticide' - its extremely low risk. Again - I do not want to get into the vibrant debate

 

[MnFish1]

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?

You must not have understood my comment. Which related to Quats in general not vibrant. It was a chemistry question - relating to multiple products recommending multiple doses every couple/several days. This is a chemistry discussion forum - I said the procedure used to measure the quats over time has not been vetted (has it?)? BTW - I apologize you're right - I objected to the methods used initially - since the NMR and presumed confirmation - I have not. So - Please - stop trying to discredit an honest question - not directed to you - with that. Again - R2R is a discussion forum - I thought

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Maybe I'm confused - I was under the impression that based on the findings - that the product accumulates - and - per a couple posters (not the researcher) - that it could accumulate to toxic levels. Since I use this every year in my pool per directions - I would like to know - from a chemistry perspective (there is no carbon etc taking stuff out of our pool FYI). My impression - based on my reading of the EPA document - is that though its called a 'pesticide' - its extremely low risk. Again - I do not want to get into the vibrant debate

What sort of filtration does your pool have? Sand? Diatomaceous earth? Removal of precipitated particulates?

No one has shown accumulation of active polymer, or even how long a single dose remains active. It might happen, but no test here can know if it is active or inert. That has implications for toxicity, even if it is still suspended in the water. It might easily become inactive when complexed to other stuff.

I’m not really seeing any big discord between EPA approved recommendations and anything listed here.

 

[jda]

I am saying to just wait and your questions will likely be answered in time. It is possible that none of them know everything yet either. We all know that this is a work in progress. Let them work.

 

[MnFish1]

What sort of filtration does your pool have? Sand? Diatomaceous earth? Removal of precipitated particulates?

No one has shown accumulation of active polymer, or even how long a single dose remains active. It might happen, but no test here can know if it is active or inert. That has implications for toxicity, even if it is still suspended in the water. It might easily become inactive when complexed to other stuff.

I’m not really seeing any big discord between EPA approved recommendations and anything listed here.

The question was that at least the way I read the graph provided - is that QUAT remained until 30 or so days. If dosed as instructed - using standard pharmacokinetics - I would assume if dosed as recommended - that it would rapidly accumulate - if dosed per recommended. Thus my question. So - IMHO - either the testing provided doesn't make complete sense - OR - the EPA approved products are being misdosed.

And yes I agree. There is no evidence that the 'polymer' measured is still 'active'. In which case - whats the point?

 

[MnFish1]

I am saying to just wait and your questions will likely be answered in time. It is possible that none of them know everything yet either. We all know that this is a work in progress. Let them work.

Again - not sure if you're talking to me. And. I have a science background - so I'm not sure where you get by telling me not to ask a question.(bTW - this question was rhetorical - I do not need a response.) - this is not about vibrant - its about the chemistry in general

 

[ingchr1]

Sorry I dont understand the question

Because the products state to repeat dose, does that implicitly equate to they do not accumulate?

 

[MnFish1]

What sort of filtration does your pool have? Sand? Diatomaceous earth? Removal of precipitated particulates?

No one has shown accumulation of active polymer, or even how long a single dose remains active. It might happen, but no test here can know if it is active or inert. That has implications for toxicity, even if it is still suspended in the water. It might easily become inactive when complexed to other stuff.

I’m not really seeing any big discord between EPA approved recommendations and anything listed here.

My sense - maybe im wrong - is that people are saying that QUATs in general accumulate over xx days. Yet - many of these products recommend dosing every 3-7 days. Were the tests here correct - there would be a massive overdose AFAIK over weeks. So - to me that is the disconnect. To answer your direct question - the filtration in the pool is just a particulate filter - not sand, not carbon - or another agent (of course chlorine is added).

And I appreciate your answer - because it helps answer the question - "It might easily become inactive when complexed to other stuff." which might suggest why other algaecides recommend more frequent dosing (i.e.l algaefix) -

 

[MnFish1]

Because the products state to repeat dose, does that implicitly equate to they do not accumulate?

Yes it implies the need for repeat dosing. EDIT - that it accumulates. Or at least does not accumulate to toxic levels

 

[Mark Gray]

Very good write up, I sure wish I handed believed the Vibrant hope. I am sure it was the cause of my very resilient Dinoflagellates and Cyno. I am on the up side now. If anyone need Vibrant I will give you a deal.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And yes I agree. There is no evidence that the 'polymer' measured is still 'active'. In which case - whats the point?

The point, at least for me, is to help understand the fate of the polymer. It’s not to develop a dosing scheme, and so far does not directly contradict any epa approved statements that I can think of.

 

[MnFish1]

The point, at least for me, is to help understand the fate of the polymer. It’s not to develop a dosing scheme, and so far does not directly contradict any epa approved statements that I can think of.

I'm probably not clear. The point of doing studies (to my thought) - to determine how long something lasts in our tanks - is to determine whether there is additive toxicity (which - to my recollection) has been suggested by at least a couple people. So - I guess there are two questions - would a toxicity study be best done in vivo (with shrimp, crabs etc) - or in vitro - somehow. Do the tests presented actually measure the 'toxic' chemical in the tank. I literally after reading the posts - have no clue - I was turning to you for that answer. My guess - is that most of the polymer (I think you do as well) - is bound to 'stuff' - and is inactive if I'm misquoting your opinion - apologies

 

[MnFish1]

Because the products state to repeat dose, does that implicitly equate to they do not accumulate?

Yes (at least in active form)

 

[a.t.t.r]

I'm probably not clear. The point of doing studies (to my thought) - to determine how long something lasts in our tanks - is to determine whether there is additive toxicity (which - to my recollection) has been suggested by at least a couple people. So - I guess there are two questions - would a toxicity study be best done in vivo (with shrimp, crabs etc) - or in vitro - somehow. Do the tests presented actually measure the 'toxic' chemical in the tank. I literally after reading the posts - have no clue - I was turning to you for that answer. My guess - is that most of the polymer (I think you do as well) - is bound to 'stuff' - and is inactive if I'm misquoting your opinion - apologies

First step before doing the toxicity test would be to find out if it accumulates and in what form and at what rate. Then apply that to a second test to figure out if it is lethal.

 

[MnFish1]

First step before doing the toxicity test would be to find out if it accumulates and in what form and at what rate. Then apply that to a second test to figure out if it is lethal.

Agree - Perhaps I'm reading the conclusions of the study incorrectly - I was under the impression that the product was accumulating.

 

[LeftyReefer]

I'm confused.

Isn't Busan 77 EPA approved for use in POTABLE water systems, as a means of algae and (freshwater) mollusk control? If so, then I can't see how this stuff is toxic or accumulates to toxic levels.... at least not for humans, otherwise it would seem the EPA didn't do it's job very well in approving it for use in drinking water systems.

In order for Busan 77 to be approved for use in POTABLE water systems, it seems it would have to be "safe to drink" when used per the label. I can't see how it would be accumulating or rather the toxicity accumulating and yet still get EPA approval for use in POTABLE water systems.

Or are we trying to determine if there is a toxicity towards mollusks and not humans? And if that is the case, don't we already know that answer?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm confused.

Isn't Busan 77 EPA approved for use in POTABLE water systems, as a means of algae and (freshwater) mollusk control? If so, then I can't see how this stuff is toxic or accumulates to toxic levels.... at least not for humans, otherwise it would seem the EPA didn't do it's job very well in approving it for use in drinking water systems.

In order for Busan 77 to be approved for use in POTABLE water systems, it seems it would have to be "safe to drink" when used per the label. I can't see how it would be accumulating or rather the toxicity accumulating and yet still get EPA approval for use in POTABLE water systems.

Or are we trying to determine if there is a toxicity towards mollusks and not humans? And if that is the case, don't we already know that answer?

where do you see it approved for use in drinking water?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Agree - Perhaps I'm reading the conclusions of the study incorrectly - I was under the impression that the product was accumulating.

There’s a suggestion from the preliminary studies that it accumulates. There’s no indictation from any tests in this thread how active it remains over time. Simple binding of stuff (such as anionic organics) to it may reduce or eliminate its functional activity without removing it from solution.

 

[LeftyReefer]

where do you see it approved for use in drinking water?

it says in potable water treatment systems.... so I guess not quite the same thing. Either way, this stuff is approved for use in a drinking water treatment systems per the label.

It was stated on the U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label for BUSAN 77, dated 08/28/1997.

Busan 77 used to control algae and mollusks such as Corbicuia and Dreissena species in potable water treatment systems.
Mitigatlon: Add Busan 77 to raw water at dosage rate of 2 to 5 ppm (2 to 5 mL of Busan 77 to 1000 L water). For badly fouled systems, treatment should be continuous for up to 21 days, followed by regular control treatments: To avoid fouling of potable water systems by mollusks, treat the raw water at 2 ppm for 60 minutes, repeating this treatment daily or a continuous feed of 0.5 mg/l

ACCEPTED
with COMMENTS
In EPA Letter Dated:
AUG 28 1997

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

it says in potable water treatment systems.... so I guess not quite the same thing. Either way, this stuff is approved for use in a drinking water treatment systems per the label.

It was stated on the U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label for BUSAN 77, dated 08/28/1997.

Busan 77 used to control algae and mollusks such as Corbicuia and Dreissena species in potable water treatment systems.
Mitigatlon: Add Busan 77 to raw water at dosage rate of 2 to 5 ppm (2 to 5 mL of Busan 77 to 1000 L water). For badly fouled systems, treatment should be continuous for up to 21 days, followed by regular control treatments: To avoid fouling of potable water systems by mollusks, treat the raw water at 2 ppm for 60 minutes, repeating this treatment daily or a continuous feed of 0.5 mg/l

ACCEPTED
with COMMENTS
In EPA Letter Dated:
AUG 28 1997

I guess it’s not clear to me if any product is allowed in potable water, or if it is just meant to clean the walls of water treatment facilities.