OH - I probably didnt re-iterate my response given before. If I thought here was an ammonia catastrophe - I would fix the issue that caused it - and do 2 90 percent water changes. I would not rely on a chemical. I said that earlier - sorry if y ou missed it
PS - the loser (no offense) of a productive discussion as you put it - always says that - I would suggest we await the results from my email with Seachem - which - you seem to suggest is 'impossible' - because they do not respond
Might be helpful (in clarifying our disagreement) to say how high an ammonia / pH you would consider within conventional conditions. I suspect your answer may be too narrow to make a hypothetical toxicity study possible. (also I'm not interested in testing on fish - sorry, and even if you talked me into seeing the value in doing it, I wouldn't post the result on here. This is a forum for people who love fish, mollies or not)
If cycling is where you are saying prime ought to be judged, then my belief is toxic ammonia levels for almost all organisms are rarely reached or maintained for any length of time in cycling.
the tap water idea is interesting. I'll play around and see what I find.
it's an interesting answer, but oddly the data says it's not true. The seneye films from @Dan_P data, and the seachem disks from mine remained responsive both up and down to changes in actual ammonia concentrations with or without Prime.
did she say that would be the case if you controlled pH? because we do, and the disks do not read lower. If you don't control pH when adding Prime, the disks would "read lower" by an undetectable amount (in saltwater). I bet you could see the pH lowering effect decrease the color in freshwater though.
We've literally tried to make prime affect readings the whole time, lol. It doesn't.
Just wanted to point out that the only test done that was outside of aquarium parameters was the amphipods. Pretty much all the rest has been at plausible ammonia - a ppm or two.
One more point on this. This answer from seachem contradicts pretty much our last remaining theory of how we could still be wrong.
To continue my query as a new hobbyist looking for advice from a friend:
Thanks for your response. I'm going to try to be concise:One more point on this. This answer from seachem contradicts pretty much our last remaining theory of how we could still be wrong.
The case for being wrong (as I see it) is pretty narrow and it goes like this....
Hypothetically,
Prime binds a low amount of ammonia into some other molecule that is less toxic than NH3. (High doses of Prime do not bind high amounts.) This other molecule has the following properties:
1) It is broken down by nitrifying bacteria at exactly the same rate as ammonia.
2) It decomposes under conditions of a salicylate total ammonia test (API, Red Sea) revealing almost the same amount of ammonia as was bound. (The amount less is due to the dechlorinator interference with the test)
3) It fools the gas permeable membrane films (Seachem disks, ammonia alert, seneye) and is able to pass the barrier.
4) It is registered by these films with the exact same color intensity as the un-bound NH3.
5) It exemplifies the exact same pH-responsive mechanism as NH3, causing a higher pH of this other bound molecule to show more intense color and a lower pH a less intense color in these films in the same way as regular NH3 does.
@Randy Holmes-Farley came up with a very plausible reaction (post 245 and 1st post of other thread) and end product molecule, We've used that to test this idea. His reasoning is sound, and fits with all the things we know from seachem and all their statements about the product, and my guess is he wrote down what is actually supposed to happen on paper (seachem might even think it does) - but in saltwater it doesn't seem to take place in any detectable way.
We can say, however that the mechanism he wrote down does not happen, because the end product NH2SO3- which ammonia is proposed to be bound into does not do
numbers 2), 3), 4), and 5) above.
number 2) - this is left to right zero, 0.1, 0.3 and 1.0 mg/L Nitrogen of the sulfamate made with a solution of Loudwolf 99% pure sulfamic acid in tank water. Top is unmodified API, bottom is red sea.
They do not decompose under conditions of the salicylate test giving an ammonia reading.
but here's what zero, 0.3, 1.0mg/L N of actual ammonia looks like with and without 5x dose of Prime (allowed to mix with ammonia overnight)
left 3 - with prime, right 3-no prime. Top: API, bottom Red sea.
And here's how the sulfamate doesn't do 3), 4) These are the ammonia sensing disks from seachem left overnight in the same solutions of 0.1, 0.3, 1.0 mg/L N from sulfamic acid (pH 8.1)
All straight zero yellow.
compare that to what happens to actual ammonia (0.3, 1.0 mg/L N) with 5x Prime (top) and without (bottom).
(I unintentionally let the Prime treatment pH slip a tenth or so below the no prime samples overnight, likely accounting for the color discrepancy - along with disk variability)
Short version: the pathway to being badly wrong on this requires another molecule that gets made by prime reacting with NH3 and fools multiple test kits/methods. The most likely candidate did no such thing and Seachem's answer to @MnFish1 says the kit shouldn't be fooled anyway - it should just show Prime decreasing the measured NH3 level.
The pathway to being materially wrong here is very narrow and getting narrower.
I would go to the Seachem website, and read up on it - and decide. Seachem states that their product can 'detoxify' ammonia. One thing I would say is 'I'm not sure whether or not it will help you - or work, If I had an ammonia issue, and that was the only thing I had to 'try' - I would try it.
So, just to be clear @MnFish1 , your advice to to a friend getting into the hobby, with very little knowledge and probably not aware of R2R, much less the many threads that discuss serious issues such as this , would be:
Yes - thats basically what they said - on the phone and on their website. So - my conclusion is either their experiments are 'wrong', or your experiments are 'wrong' - or the 2 sets of experiments differ in some way - which lead to different conclusions. This is what I think is happening.
Yes - lets make it clear - what you're saying above is NOT what I've said in this thread. Your paraphrasing of what I said is not based on the question that was asked nor my response.
Point taken.
@AquariumScience mentions Sodium Hydroxymethanesulfonate on his website - as well as the paper you quote above - and states the methods were not done properly. Whether this is correct or not - I don't know.
aquariumscience.org
In case you're not aware, every day - I go to the 'unanswered threads' and answer questions perhaps 5-10/day or more. I do not say 'google it' or study up and make a decision. I give my opinion. I try to give a lot of help to a lot of people on this forum. So - I think your comment is a fair bit off base.
I have never been intent on proving that Dan and Taricha are not scientists. I've never said that. I don't even believe that I implied that they were not scientists - and in fact - I have no idea what their backgrounds are. I will say point blank - they know more chemistry than I do... But - even scientific papers - that are peer reviewed are discussed with regards to results, methods, etc. This is a discussion board. I was discussing their results - while (at least several times) complimenting their efforts, and have said they may be totally correct.
The way you asked the question - as a hypothetical had 2 parts you asked about Prime. I recommended the person go to the Seachem website and learn about it. Then I said I wasn't sure if prime would help - but (since in your question you implied) that that was the only thing he/she had access to - I said I would try it. Your question the way it was framed - had 2 possible answers. 1. Use Prime or another conditioner or 2. Let your fish die (since the hypothetical person had access to no other solutions).
Yeah, let's leave amquel, ClorAm-x for a different discussion for another day.
