Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

[DrZoidburg]

You cant prove that they were faked reviews though or that the people on here using it are faking it. @Righteous If anything maybe change their label to make safer. I would agree to that. The fact at hand here is that all of the loop holes in these tests really make them invalid to a degree.

 

[DrZoidburg]

If it were hurting fish I would like to know too don't get me wrong.

 

[Righteous]

You cant prove that they were faked reviews though or that the people on here using it are faking it. @Righteous If anything maybe change their label to make safer. I would agree to that.

I don’t need to prove they are fake reviews. It is simply that no matter how many people believe something doesn’t make it true. Lots of people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Didn’t make it true.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The fact at hand here is that all of the loop holes in these tests really make them invalid to a degree.

If there have been design errors in the experiments, it still doesn’t change the burden of proof. It may be that the experiments were ill designed, but you cannot then assume prime must detoxify ammonia.

The only way to confirm that it can, is by proving it does with an experiment, not by shifting the burden of proof.

To my knowledge no one has shown any proof that it can. One would think it would be in Seachem’s interest to do so, but they have failed to do that for some reason.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

 

[Dan_P]

When you address the flaws in this test it would be more buyable. @Dan_P How do you know that seneye only picks those up if you did not test?

Since I do not know what is in Prime and the molecule supposedly produced when it reacts with ammonia, there is no way to select an appropriate control molecule to test these films.

I think we are probably at the end of this discussion until more information is available.

 

[taricha]

So in the quoted post, I didn't actually have any positive Nitrite to test against Prime, so I could only show that it did not create a false positive. We concluded from the negative interference of Prime with NO3 test that it would also negatively interfere with NO2, but again - I had no NO2 to check that with.
so I wanted to follow up and look at that.

I tested Ammonia and Red Sea NO3 tests with thiosulfate (similar to Prime - some assert that Prime active ingredient turns into thiosulfate) and I found that the tests are very much interfered with by thiosulfate.


I wanted to do some checking before I said this also for sure happens with Prime. It does.

left pic: Red Sea NO3 pro with ~0.7ppm NO3, top is normal, bottom is with 2x Prime.
center pic: Red Sea marine NO2/NO3 test kit, Nitrite test, sample water has ~1ppm ammonia and ~30ppm NO3. Neither without (top) or with (bottom) 2x Prime does it show any false NO2.
right: API ammonia at 5min with 1ppm ammonia, left tube is normal, right tube is with 2x Prime.
These were done 5 min after addition of Prime. I checked again at 45 min and it still interfered with API total ammonia. I do not know how many hours the interference lasts for.

With Prime, cycling tests are unreliable. The strong reducing agent causes a negative interference with total ammonia and NO3 tests, and probably also NO2 tests (because the final step of an NO3 test is an NO2 test), but I have no NO2 samples to demonstrate that with. I didn't have an API NO2 test handy, but given that it zeros out NO3 tests, I don't see how Prime could positively interfere with an NO2 test to show fake NO2.

(I haven't gone through the specifics of that thread to comment on it)

API NO2 test. Below is a clean sample on the left - zero NO2, one with ~1.1 ppm NO2, and one with a 5x dose of prime added


Here's what it looks like in terms of absorbance The pink color is the hump around 530nm.... the 5x Prime dose causes a reduction in measured NO2 from ~1.1ppm to 0.81ppm. (using regression information from here to calc the ppm NO2). So an interference of ~30% or ~0.3ppm at this level.


And here's what adding 1.4 mM of Thiosulfate does to the NO2 test. It reduces the NO2 measured by a similar amount.


It is likely the case that any water conditioner / dechlorinator will interefere with the usual common cycling tests: ammonia, NO2, NO3 tests. The NO2 interference may be small enough to still test through it to some degree? But the ammonia interference is stronger.

 

[brandon429]

That finding can be tremendously useful in stuck cycle posts thank you for summarizing

 

[Garf]

That finding can be tremendously useful in stuck cycle posts thank you for summarizing

I don’t see any relevance to stuck cycles, even less so with a normal dose. Am I missing something? As previous, I tried adding all types of stuff and couldn’t get a false nitrite reading, leading me to believe it’s probably not a false reading when folks detect nitrite, just an incomplete cycle. Harmful, probably not. False, nah.

 

[ingchr1]

The claim of Prime is that it takes ammonia (also nitrite) and binds it to something else, thus it does not harm the fish. It remains bound for up to 48hrs, giving time for your biological filter to build up and deal with the ammonia once the Prime releases it. If your biological filter is still not up to the task, then you would need to dose Prime again.

Is this correct?

When ammonia and nitrite are in the bound state how is each measurement method affected? Would each method measure the same amount, or should binding result in a lower measurement?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The claim of Prime is that it takes ammonia (also nitrite) and binds it to something else, thus it does not harm the fish. It remains bound for up to 48hrs, giving time for your biological filter to build up and deal with the ammonia once the Prime releases it. If your biological filter is still not up to the task, then you would need to dose Prime again.

Is this correct?

When ammonia and nitrite are in the bound state how is each measurement method affected? Would each method measure the same amount, or should binding result in a lower measurement?

I do not think the purported ingredients fit that "claim".

Thus the doubt about if and how it works.

 

[brandon429]

Garf I'd chat about it in pm if you're interested it was just a remark about T's findings in the pattern posts I like to seek out daily. this thread has impacts to cycling threads is where the remark came from but to debate it three pages we've got to pm lol.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, even Seachem doesn't have any evidence that it actually detoxifies nitrite or nitrate in marine systems. They are relying on customer comments for that "idea". Maybe the ammonia "detoxification" has the same rigorous level of proof. lol

Seachem - Prime

www.seachem.com

"
A: The detoxification of nitrite and nitrate by Prime® (when used at elevated levels) is not well understood from a mechanistic standpoint. The most likely explanation is that the nitrite and nitrate is removed in a manner similar to the way ammonia is removed; i.e. it is bound and held in a inert state until such time that bacteria in the biological filter are able to take a hold of it, break it apart and use it. Two other possible scenarios are reduction to nitrogen (N2) gas or conversion into a benign organic nitrogen compound.

I wish we had some more "concrete" explanation, but the end result is the same, it does actually detoxify nitrite and nitrate. This was unexpected chemically and thus initially we were not even aware of this, however we received numerous reports from customers stating that when they overdosed with Prime® they were able to reduce or eliminate the high death rates they experienced when their nitrite and nitrate levels were high. We have received enough reports to date to ensure that this is no fluke and is in fact a verifiable function of the product."

 

[DrZoidburg]

As previous, I tried adding all types of stuff and couldn’t get a false nitrite reading, leading me to believe it’s probably not a false reading when folks detect nitrite.

It doesn't add up to me either how is it that your results were so different. What were your nitrite numbers before?
@taricha What source of thiosulfate did you use? Did the 1.4mM account for the whole compound or the percentage of thiosulfate? That could make a big difference. What source of nitrite did you use?

 

[taricha]

I don’t see any relevance to stuck cycles, even less so with a normal dose. Am I missing something?

The relevance to "stuck cycles" is mostly in the fact that adding Prime or another water treatment product with a de-chlorinator is going to cause low values for chemical cycling tests. Ammonia, NO2, NO3. So when those products are in effect, the test shows a low value, and when they wear off, the tested parameter will seem to increase.
This would be confusing and may lead people to believe that something is going wrong if ammonia, or NO2 goes down then back up when it should be (and in reality, likely is) steadily dropping.

I tried adding all types of stuff and couldn’t get a false nitrite reading, leading me to believe it’s probably not a false reading when folks detect nitrite, just an incomplete cycle. Harmful, probably not. False, nah.

Agreed. I can't come up with any ideas to measure a falsely high NO2. Lots of ways to interfere negatively.

It doesn't add up to me either how is it that your results were so different. What were your nitrite numbers before?

Not sure what's supposed to have been "different". Garf tried a bunch of stuff on zero NO2 water and measured zero NO2 (in API the blue is zero, pink/purple is detecting nitrite). No false positives. First round, I tried the same and similarly came up with a bunch of zeros - neither a healthy amount of ammonia or NO3 would give me false positive for NO2.
This time I had some NO2 sample, so I could check to see if there was a negative interference, and there was. Both from Prime and just Thiosulfate.

@taricha What source of thiosulfate did you use? Did the 1.4mM account for the whole compound or the percentage of thiosulfate? That could make a big difference. What source of nitrite did you use?

0.1N (0.1M) sodium thiosulfate solution. Added to a 350mL sample of aquarium water that had a couple of weeks ago had some ammonia dosed and there was some NO2 that had been created in it.
The 1.4mM is = 0.1M thio x (5mL added) / (350mL sample). This thiosulfate is 1-2 yr old so it may be weaker - perhaps best to think of 1.4mM as the upper limit.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Still not changing opinion on other brand. Now it does make a little more sense @taricha No one said garf was just testing blank water. I guess I should of asked but he never replied on page 1. Here are my new thoughts on this one. It probably is thiosulfate (opinion pending) and an organic polymer, maybe two polymers. The test vial you posted in #165 this was prime that your saying accounted for the 1.4 mM, or another source? Both? I was wondering if the 1.4 was total sodium thiosulfate, or just thiosulfate. This is a very small amount thiosulfate portion if so. It would make sense if it was 2 years old and it had degraded some. Seems an explanation of why it could be .81mg after. Another possibly being impurities. Maybe they rely on this vinylsulfonate polymer to grab ammonium with a +1 charge shifting the equilibrium to make ammonia to ammonium. For however long it takes to fix. For the nitrite negative they would need a polymer like pvp with a positive charge. If they didn't rely on oxidizing nitrite that is. This could be also why you see toxicity in inverts and not as much in fish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Maybe they rely on this vinylsulfonate polymer to grab ammonium with a +1 charge shifting the equilibrium to make ammonia to ammonium. For however long it takes to fix. For the nitrite negative they would need a polymer like pvp with a positive charge. If they didn't rely on oxidizing nitrite that is. This could be also why you see toxicity in inverts and not as much in fish.

I actually have a lot of experience with binding ions (including ammonia) with polymers. It's what I do for a living, and have done successfully for 30+ years.

I do not believe that ammonia can be usefully bound by a simple ionic binding in seawater. I was on the scientific advisory board of a company that wanted to bind ammonia in the GI tract of people. That is a much easier environment to work in because the competing cations (sodium, calcium, etc.) are much lower in concentration, and yet is was quite difficult to bind much, and the approaches needed to be much more sophisticated than simple ionic binding.

 

[DrZoidburg]

I do not believe that ammonia can be usefully bound by a simple ionic binding in seawater. I was on the scientific advisory board of a company that wanted to bind ammonia in the GI tract of people. That is a much easier environment to work in because the competing cations (sodium, calcium, etc.) are much lower in concentration, and yet is was quite difficult to bind much, and the approaches needed to be much more sophisticated than simple ionic binding.

Maybe this is why they tell to over dose, not go past x amount, and it is only effective for 24 - 48 hours. Seems like kind of a crutch mechanism. A lot of these even from different brands use polymers. Possibly working in a way where it inhibits these toxins getting into fish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Maybe this is why they tell to over dose, not go past x amount, and it is only effective for 24 - 48 hours. Seems like kind of a crutch mechanism. A lot of these even from different brands use polymers. Possibly working in a way where it inhibits these toxins getting into fish.

That makes no chemical sense to me (i.e., I believe it cannot possibly be useful for ammonia in seawater), but I certainly cannot know what anyone else was thinking when they produced a product.

 

[Righteous]

I have a new product… Quicksilver Ammonia Lock … it should be able to amalgamate ammonium. What do you think!?


I’m just kidding of course. But the video is pretty cool.

 

[DrZoidburg]

I am thinkin of a few more organic reactions under alkaline conditions that may create protecting groups. Making a possible chemoselective sulfonamide. The H2C,ch3, ethyl varieties, and all with similar densities. Depending on concentration. As well as R-S03- can do that. Using cations, and anions in the water as catalysts. Then further reacting with other organics. Making a much larger more stable molecule, or a smaller less toxic set. Could this happen with out reflux or high temperatures I don't know. @Randy Holmes-Farley do you think something like that could be possible? Also maybe the 24 hours because some of these react with light. Again could be another reason they say to overdose.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I am thinkin of a few more organic reactions under alkaline conditions that may create protecting groups. Making a possible chemoselective sulfonamide. The H2C,ch3, ethyl varieties, and all with similar densities. Depending on concentration. As well as R-S03- can do that. Using cations, and anions in the water as catalysts. Then further reacting with other organics. Making a much larger more stable molecule, or a smaller less toxic set. Could this happen with out reflux or high temperatures I don't know. @Randy Holmes-Farley do you think something like that could be possible? Also maybe the 24 hours because some of these react with light. Again could be another reason they say to overdose.

Reacting ammonia is one of the approaches we tried. It's complicated to get it to happen safely, and since commercial materials are not available to do so without having nasty stuff loose in the aquarium, I think it unlikely anyone has used such a complex technology.