My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

[ScottB]

I just poured into the tank while holding my nose.

Too funny!

Bad outcomes with Vibrant have happened but they are extremely rare. I am not sure many of those posters are admitting that they followed bad advice, suggesting it is safe to double, triple or quadruple the dose.

I got good results using less than recommended. I was just baffled by the similarity of results to a fluc dose.

 

[Midrats]

@UWC is conspicuous by their absence.

 

[taricha]

Do I think the company should disclose the ingredients so we know what we are putting in our tanks and exposing our live animals to? Yes

Will I still use it when I need to even if they don’t? Yes

This is such a bummer as I was starting to see results, and today is dose day.

Fwiw I've continued using vibrant. I've already paid for the product, and it seems it's maybe similar to algae fix which many have used.

Yeah. I mean, testing the bottles doesn't change what's in it. If you liked how your tank responded to it, then your tank will respond the same way.
But maybe adjust your thinking about how it's likely working.

Also it's worth considering that you could find another product with probably the same active ingredient that assures you on the label exactly what and how much is in it.

 

[taricha]

Very interesting that a supposed bacterial product has significant antibacterial properties. I wonder, if vibrant is indeed a bacterial product, could whatever is causing this bacterial suppression serve as a sort of preservative for shelf stability and product longevity?

The universe is full of all sorts of possibilities,
but I think it's unlikely that there's an unrelated chemical in vibrant as a preservative that's generating these results.

Seems unlikely that it's a normal bacterial culture preservative that just happens to look so much like the quat in AlgaeFix - keeps fooling chemical tests for quat (bromophenol blue, and commercial quat test strips) as though it is one, and fools them by the same amount.
Also it would be odd to use something that has barely any effect in saltwater as a preservative for a presumably saltwater bacterial culture - then again, who says it's got any salt in it? (Vibrant dries clear and smooth like algaefix leaving a slick spot, not crystals like a drop of saltwater.)
Also unlikely that a random bacterial preservative would be present in exactly the right amount in vibrant as the quat is in algaefix to suppress bacteria to the same extent - the same very low effect in saltwater, and the same strong effect in freshwater: 1% of algaefix and vibrant both delaying O2 for over a day but the same delay to within an hour.

 

[a.t.t.r]

So verdict seems to be that vibrant is actually the same as algae fix based on all the test results? Wouldn’t that require an epa registration. Wonder what the FTC would say as well?
As someone who just started using it sat and then Stumbling into this thread I can say I am mildly ticked off with false advertisement and the fact I purposely avoid things like algaefix. This was marketed as being more similar to dr Tim’s as a fully bacterial treatment odd as you narrowed things down @UWC disappeared.

 

[JCOLE]

Yep. As you know my tank was devastated a year ago from dosing Vibrant. Never had an issue when dosing just Fluconazole. I think adding Vibrant decimated my bacteria population and also algae within my corals causing a crash. A year later I am still dealing with issues. Never again will I use Vibrant. I don't care what anyone says or the company for that matter. It should not be used for an SPS dominant system. Fish only and hardier corals such as softies and LPS, sure.

Also, wow! I just read through the whole thread and I knew it. @jda was right all along. I remember he said it was an algaecide along time ago and that made the most since. Thanks to @taricha and others who put in the time to come to these findings. Sure wish the company would put this much effort in showing what's in the product as they did. It makes me very upset because I know what Vibrant did to my Acro's and I lost thousands of dollars!!! If I would have known it was an algaecide then I would have never have put it in an Acro dominate tank.

Also, found the two bottles I had on hand a year ago that crashed my tank. It says other ingredients as well.

Beyond upset right now! :mad:

 

[jcolliii]

Just a parallel observation to report that I find interesting. I use neither fluc nor vibrant, though in the past, I did use both. Neither have been in my current tank. I have GHA in shaded areas, but none in brightly lit ones. In my case, I use the GHA to let me know when my PO4 is too low, as it will start more of an active growth phase when phosphate bottoms; I'll dose my homebrew PO4 soln when I see this and it will diminish again. Anyhow, thought I'd mention this.

 

[taricha]

So verdict seems to be that vibrant is actually the same as algae fix based on all the test results?

You have the basic idea.
"the Same" isn't really a claim that's possible to nail down - could be another similar Quat, could be a less tested less safe one for all we know. Nothing in the ingredients or label gives us a clue.

We can say there's a similar chemical to the ingredient in algaefix - one that responds like a quat to different tests for a quat, present in a similar amounts to algaefix. It also possesses similar antibacterial properties in freshwater (significant) and saltwater (almost undetectable), as expected from the quat in algaefix.
No other bacterial product I've found contains such a compound - I checked like a dozen. Nor would a quat have any clear purpose for a bacterial product. But they can and do function as algacides.

The most likely method for how vibrant kills algae seems quite clear.

Wouldn’t that require an epa registration. Wonder what the FTC would say as well?

I have no knowledge (or interest) in the legalities. Can't help you there.

As someone who just started using it sat and then Stumbling into this thread I can say I am mildly ticked off with false advertisement and the fact I purposely avoid things like algaefix. This was marketed as being more similar to dr Tim’s as a fully bacterial treatment

Personally, I'd rather a known chemical in known amounts than an unpredictable bacterial actor, I actually use algaefix sometimes.

Side note: devilishly difficult to show bacterial products (not nitrifiers) actually activate and the bacteria in them have clear effects. Vibrant is the "bacterial" product that has a slam-dunk obvious effect. Makes a lot more sense why now.

 

[ScottB]

Just a parallel observation to report that I find interesting. I use neither fluc nor vibrant, though in the past, I did use both. Neither have been in my current tank. I have GHA in shaded areas, but none in brightly lit ones. In my case, I use the GHA to let me know when my PO4 is too low, as it will start more of an active growth phase when phosphate bottoms; I'll dose my homebrew PO4 soln when I see this and it will diminish again. Anyhow, thought I'd mention this.

That is an interesting theory/observation. It contradicts the behavior of many reefers; they see some GHA and immediately start hammering nutrients. And then they end up over in a dinoflagellates thread.

 

[a.t.t.r]

So the polyquat that is contained in that 3.5 percent other of @UWC vibrant. What keeps that from killing the symbiotic algae inside the corals?


Also. Thinking more into it it is funny how they claim 3.5 rodi in the website why dilute a bacteria solution and list it when the solution itself contains unlisted water. Clearly they are trying to pull one over on people.

 

[jcolliii]

That is an interesting theory/observation. It contradicts the behavior of many reefers; they see some GHA and immediately start hammering nutrients. And then they end up over in a dinoflagellates thread.

I'd always thought it probably had to do with competition - my hypothesis was that corals growing well were using up the available PO4 and driving it toward zero. When that happened, the lower nutrient levels disfavored the corals, growth slows and the algae take over because they utilize lower nutrient levels better. Maybe it is bacteria using up the PO4 - as I do keep a liter or so of Seachem Matrix in a back chamber, and I did seed that with a bacterial product long ago. It is fantastic at removing nitrates (apparently) as I see bubbles trapped beneath my filter floss, and my NO3 is always super low and I do not do many waterchanges at all - so not doing the typical export thing that way.

Anyhow, I have always wondered why the GHA in my tank is relegated to the shadows and not to the tops of the branches. There is plenty of available nice clean branch surface, yet unless PO4 drops to nearly undetectable, no GHA grows there. curious.

 

[jda]

^ read back a bit... don't assume that quat is the only ingredient. Figure some organic carbon to drop that P and the N.

 

[fermentedhiker]

@taricha I have a question for you. Have you are do you know if anyone has looked at Seachem Flourish Excel in saltwater? It's used as a carbon source for freshwater plants but also seems to have some significant algaecidal impacts. Commercially it's a disinfectant that goes under the trade name Metricide(active ingredient is glutaraldehyde). Seachem claims it's not exactly the same, but do admit that is the active ingredient. It is generally safe for vascular plants with a few exceptions(Vals, Elodea, and Anacharis all melt pretty quickly when exposed to it) It doesn't appear to affect fish or inverts at the dosages involved. From what I gather it breaks down in less than 48 hours in freshwater.

I just ask because I've seen it mentioned more than once on these threads that an exotic carbon source is suspected of being the reason for a drop of N&P and in the dosages used no commonly used carbon source would cause a meaningful change. Glutaraldehyde is about the most concentrated carbon source I've come across so far.

 

[ScottB]

Now that we believe well beyond a reasonable doubt that Vibrant contains some type of (poly)quaternary ammonium, I'd like to understand the conditions in which its use can lead to SPS crashes. (Same with Fluconazole use. Actually, even more so. Vibrant use is clearly discretionary, while bryopsis removal has no other option I am aware of. Anyway, another thread for that.)

Many thousands of reefers have dosed the stuff, thousands of LFS tank service teams use the stuff VERY regularly. I'd bet half the tanks serviced get dosed at some point.

Are quats stable in a marine environment or do they break down? Do they accumulate?
Does GAC remove quats? Skimmer?
How powerful is the carbon source?
Which SPS cannot tolerate quats well? Tenuis? Milli? Any acropora? Montipora?
Are the SPS crashes dosing at the weekly or biweekly dosing regimes?
Does the AlgaeFix quat version have SPS crash histories also?

 

[taricha]

So the polyquat that is contained in that 3.5 percent other...

That's an assumption of convenience. Could be true or not.
It's an off-label ingredient, no particular reason to think the label is a good guide to how much there is.

What keeps that from killing the symbiotic algae inside the corals?

It's surface-active, and surface-disruptive. Not a small molecule that penetrates, mostly.

 

[jda]

I have been thinking about this and some have asked UWC to comment. Why would anybody want this? To this point, they have not been able to be honest so what makes anybody think that they will be now. I expect them to comment eventually but try and spin the narrative still towards some magical bacteria and poo-poo away the quat as a preservative or some other inert ingredient... or something else that is not totally honest. I want nothing more for them to just shut up and/or just be completely honest, so their lack of posting is fine with me and probably very smart, but if they do post, I sure hope that they know that the benefit of the doubt that they got from many in the past is gone now. Someday, the EPA might come knocking about their lack of warning label and true-to-use instructions, so they should prepare for this and act accordingly like they will not be able to fool the masses anymore.

I have a few friends who have used AlgaeFix without any issues - mostly for hair in dry/dead rock tank starts. However, this product is labeled correctly and nobody probably has gotten the inclination to use too much of it like they would a true bacteria product which generally does not have consequences for doing so. Small sample size, for sure...

Maybe a generic question for Dr. Holmes-Farley about the stability of QACs in saltwater, lifespan and whether they could be absorbed by GAC or attached to bubbles and skimmed out. Doubt that he will want to get into all of this with this context, but he might respond to questions about just the compound. Probably safe to just ask about polyquat if somebody wants to start a thread, or I might in a little bit when I get some time. Edit: I just started a thread in the Chem forum, so we will see if anybody has answers.

 

[ScottB]

I have been thinking about this and some have asked UWC to comment. Why would anybody want this? To this point, they have not been able to be honest so what makes anybody think that they will be now. I expect them to comment eventually but try and spin the narrative still towards some magical bacteria and poo-poo away the quat as a preservative or some other inert ingredient... or something else that is not totally honest. I want nothing more for them to just shut up and/or just be completely honest, so their lack of posting is fine with me and probably very smart, but if they do post, I sure hope that they know that the benefit of the doubt that they got from many in the past is gone now. Someday, the EPA might come knocking about their lack of warning label and true-to-use instructions, so they should prepare for this and act accordingly like they will not be able to fool the masses anymore.

I have a few friends who have used AlgaeFix without any issues - mostly for hair in dry/dead rock tank starts. However, this product is labeled correctly and nobody probably has gotten the inclination to use too much of it like they would a true bacteria product which generally does not have consequences for doing so. Small sample size, for sure...

Maybe a generic question for Dr. Holmes-Farley about the stability of QACs in saltwater, lifespan and whether they could be absorbed by GAC or attached to bubbles and skimmed out. Doubt that he will want to get into all of this with this context, but he might respond to questions about just the compound. Probably safe to just ask about polyquat if somebody wants to start a thread, or I might in a little bit when I get some time. Edit: I just started a thread in the Chem forum, so we will see if anybody has answers.

I didn't really know where to start in answering my own questions. I think your move over to the Chem forum and discussing the compound's behavior in a marine environment is a solid start.

There is a use case for this stuff clearly. Any kind of understanding we can collect about the (tail?) risks is worth determining and sharing. Same goes for fluconazole even more so IMO. But I bet Vibrant outsells all the fluc variants 10:1. So there is that.

 

[taricha]

@taricha I have a question for you. Have you are do you know if anyone has looked at Seachem Flourish Excel in saltwater? It's used as a carbon source for freshwater plants but also seems to have some significant algaecidal impacts.

Nope. I haven't looked at flourish excel. Do people use it in saltwater?

I just ask because I've seen it mentioned more than once on these threads that an exotic carbon source is suspected of being the reason for a drop of N&P and in the dosages used no commonly used carbon source would cause a meaningful change. Glutaraldehyde is about the most concentrated carbon source I've come across so far.

dunno, I don't think we need some crazy concentration of carbon to explain the modest nutrient decreases from vibrant.

I'd like to understand the conditions in which its use can lead to SPS crashes.

Good Q. One might wonder how tightly and carefully controlled the concentration is for an unlabeled ingredient. Maybe some batches aren't consistent.

Are quats stable in a marine environment or do they break down? Do they accumulate?
Does GAC remove quats? Skimmer?
How powerful is the carbon source?
Which SPS cannot tolerate quats well? Tenuis? Milli? Any acropora? Montipora?
Are the SPS crashes dosing at the weekly or biweekly dosing regimes?
Does the AlgaeFix quat version have SPS crash histories also?

ok. I didn't actually expect this....

"While biodegradation of QACs has been shown to occur in laboratory studies,5–8 their removal in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is likely driven by sorption to activated sludge.9–11 Consequently, QACs have been detected world-wide in WWTP influent, effluent, and sludge samples with concentrations typically in the high and low μg L−1 range for influents and effluents, respectively, as well as in the mid-to-high μg g−1 range for sewage sludge.12–15 As evident from these results as well as detection of QACs in river water samples,16–18 QACs are not completely removed during wastewater treatment and are released into the natural environment. ... In addition, the degradation of QACs in the natural environment by both microorganisms and photolysis is slow,4,5,7,8,22–24 resulting in accumulation of significant amounts of these compounds in sediments. 25–27"

caveats in bunches here - these comments are not about saltwater, and are about compounds other than the polyquat in algaefix (and whatever is in vibrant). Nonetheless I assumed all these related compounds would be broken down by bacteria to a more significant degree over time. hmmm....

 

[taricha]

Maybe a generic question for Dr. Holmes-Farley about the stability of QACs in saltwater, lifespan and whether they could be absorbed by GAC or attached to bubbles and skimmed out. Doubt that he will want to get into all of this with this context, but he might respond to questions about just the compound. Probably safe to just ask about polyquat if somebody wants to start a thread, or I might in a little bit when I get some time. Edit: I just started a thread in the Chem forum, so we will see if anybody has answers.

sidestep the issue of an unlabeled ingredient, and just discuss the chemistry of Algaefix.
The chemical is known, named, widely used, and pretty thoroughly understood.

 

[jda]

I agree, just don't know things about it in a reef tank. Even if we had some research about it getting into saltwater lagoons or open ocean, they don't have foam fractionation or granular activated carbon. Dr RHF has been good before about helping with other compounds that I have had questions about in the past.