Benzalkonium Chloride in the reef

LadAShark

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
483
Reaction score
251
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Benzalkonium Chloride or BKC for short is used in the shrimp farming industry and used in closed systems to reduce the amount of plankton and dinoflagellates in the water, and can lower bacterial count as well. As some of the essential bacteria are generally more resilient to oxidizers, BKC may potentially have a place in the reef. Just wanted to kickstart some investigation into its effects at low doses, as shrimp are generally sensitive to such compounds and yet it's useful in shrimp farms.
 
"Benzalkonium Chloride or BKC for short is used in the shrimp farming industry"
And that's why I only buy wild caught , not farmed shrimp for my consumption.
 
"Benzalkonium Chloride or BKC for short is used in the shrimp farming industry"
And that's why I only buy wild caught , not farmed shrimp for my consumption.
I found out a while back that wild caught shrimp relies on deep sea trawling, which kills about 5-20 pounds of bycatch per pound of shrimp caught, so it turns out consuming shrimp in general is seriously destructive to the environment.
 
Benzalkonium Chloride or BKC for short is used in the shrimp farming industry
really?
I seriously thought there would be much less toxic choices for flocculants.
 
Benzalkonium Chloride or BKC for short is used in the shrimp farming industry and used in closed systems to reduce the amount of plankton and dinoflagellates in the water, and can lower bacterial count as well.

Bear in mind that there are dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae) inside every photosynthetic coral. Losing them would not be desirable.
 
I guess this might be another experiment to create sterile reef tank, this one not only without bacteria but even without algae and plankton.
 
I found out a while back that wild caught shrimp relies on deep sea trawling, which kills about 5-20 pounds of bycatch per pound of shrimp caught, so it turns out consuming shrimp in general is seriously destructive to the environment.
In a 2006 report, the EPA recognized the toxicity of BACs to the aquatic environment and its inhabitants, such as fish, oysters, shrimp, and invertebrates, advising against the release of BACs into lakes, oceans, or other waters (3). Since then, their toxicity to aquatic organisms, as well as other animals, has been well established by several research groups”
What a dilemma! Destroy environment by trawling or by adding chemicals!
 
really?
I seriously thought there would be much less toxic choices for flocculants.
Potency (which equates to toxicity in this case) does not necessarily mean that a substance is not an option, it just means the dosage simply needs to be far lower. They don't use it as a flocculant, they quite literally use it to kill disease causing organisms, like vibrio, which is also deadly to shrimp.

Bear in mind that there are dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae) inside every photosynthetic coral. Losing them would not be desirable.
True. The idea is that problematic bacteria may be more sensitive to benzalkonium than the dinoflagellates, and given that it is usable for shrimp, it would suggest that there may be a therapeutic window to look into. It is important to remember that shrimp farming involves green water, that is, they keep them with a ton of phytoplankton. If benzalkonium was entirely deadly, that would not be possible.
In a 2006 report, the EPA recognized the toxicity of BACs to the aquatic environment and its inhabitants, such as fish, oysters, shrimp, and invertebrates, advising against the release of BACs into lakes, oceans, or other waters (3). Since then, their toxicity to aquatic organisms, as well as other animals, has been well established by several research groups”
What a dilemma! Destroy environment by trawling or by adding chemicals!
I suppose 'none of the above, just don't eat shrimp,' isn't an option?
Ultimately BACs are biodegraded, the issue is just the rate we release them is beyond the rate the environment can cope with as we use copious amounts of them. The whole point of the thread is that there is a possibility that BAC's at extremely low doses may remain toxic to disease causing organisms, but not that much so to desirable organisms.
 
True. The idea is that problematic bacteria may be more sensitive to benzalkonium than the dinoflagellates, and given that it is usable for shrimp, it would suggest that there may be a therapeutic window to look into. It is important to remember that shrimp farming involves green water, that is, they keep them with a ton of phytoplankton. If benzalkonium was entirely deadly, that would not be possible.
IMO, randomly finding compounds that kill organisms we do not want and keeps those we do is a a long shot. That's why drug discovery is so incredibly hard, time consuming, and very, very expensive. I have led drug discovery programs with similar compounds (cationic therapeutic polymers) with a similar goal (killing pathogenic bacteria and not being toxic to human cells). It is very challenging to find specificity, even when you can make and test hundreds of intentionally designed molecules.

I'm all for someone doing experiments on anything they want to try, but this isn't one I'd put money on success. I do not think the shrimp usage is much of a boost for success likelihood.
 
A couple of comments just for discussion sake.

I didn't expect it to be nearly as effective in saltwater as fresh, but it seems it is.

A couple of papers found that a bath in the stuff could protect fish and shrimp from a later infection they were exposed to. Makes it sound like it binds on the livestock itself. (Which makes some chemistry sense, I think. ) That use might be a much easier case to make.

In the context of aquaculture where you are just raising one valuable organism and only need a few others for stability, the options for treatment are much wider than in a reef where the community of organisms we care about is enormous and diverse - and we aren't even sure of all the ones that are important or not.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top