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

[shwareefer]

No offence dude, I'm sure you're really smart, but if your answer to @taricha doing actually testing based on an actual method, with actual materials and your response is "colour wheel", it really just looks like gaslighting. The motive is just to cast doubt, not prove anything.

Until you provide some live science of your own with the same materials that proves it's just ph shift, no wait... colour blending, no wait... whatever the next argument is, you're not moving the needle for me and I expect a few others on this thread.

Btw, @taricha has not claimed to have proven anything except he's seeing an identicle response to a known QAC containing product.

 

[taricha]

[responded to Dr Z via PM since the confusion isn't relevant and the correct information has already been covered.]

 

[DrZoidburg]

@taricha the multiple dots represent a crude equilibrium. There is yellow in it. Color mixing is a basic reason you see these. Have you considered maybe the mo you have is not pure or differs slightly from the kind used in research paper? There are varieties of this dye that actually use polyquat-42, or sodium MO etc... Could this be throwing off your test? How do you know exactly which dyes they used in research paper versus lamotte kit? Except the one they say is masked. Even those masked ones have differences. Which I assume is different from the first bpb you used. The lamotte qac test kit is calibrated color change specifically with something that is known to have it in sanitation products. It also has other additives than dyes. The additives will also complex with other things. It could also cause precipitation with a wide range of things. Even so there are things that could fool their test kit amino acids being one of them. Especially if you don't know if it is even in there how could you draw any real conclusion from a indicator dye that can change because of so many things. Mostly this is why I say it is coincidental, nor any definite proof. I'm not taking any sides here. I also apologize for my late night rabble it is slightly different from my morning rabble Heh. I think there are better ways. Also I would like to note how something acts as a acid or base in solutions is not just +'s, and -'s. One has to consider many more things than ph, or charge. Even how different combinations will influence each other, or their colors. Why is it that cation resin sticks to your hand, but so does anion resin with an opposite charge?

 

[jcolliii]

Our LC-MS has been down recently (I think it may be back up), but if we were to filter out the supposedly present bacterial product (as to not potentially gum up the column), that would leave presumably only aspartic acid, acetic acid and whatever the unknown is. Looking at the resulting spectra should allow the knowns to be subtracted away resulting in peaks for the unknown. Could then compare what remains with various quats until a match is found. I know we don't have many quats on hand, but could use algaefix as a standard...

Lemme talk to our analytical chemist and see what he thinks...

 

[DrZoidburg]

edit*

 

[DrZoidburg]

Our LC-MS has been down recently (I think it may be back up), but if we were to filter out the supposedly present bacterial product (as to not potentially gum up the column), that would leave presumably only aspartic acid, acetic acid and whatever the unknown is. Looking at the resulting spectra should allow the knowns to be subtracted away resulting in peaks for the unknown. Could then compare what remains with various quats until a match is found. I know we don't have many quats on hand, but could use algaefix as a standard...

Lemme talk to our analytical chemist and see what he thinks...

I thought of a way to do it with out any spectrum controversy. I just need to order the chemicals, and find the time.

 

[taricha]

My memory on Dante's Inferno is pretty rusty, so I don't remember exactly which circle of hell has the people arguing online about what color they think pictures are.

unrelatedly,
[reply on confusions to Dr Z in pm]

 

[DrZoidburg]

Let us us compare what was told to us about this kit vs what is in it actually looking up the ingredients. What was told was just MO and BPB. What is actually in it. Sulfuric acid Speculate just MO, Masked bromophenol, and sodium tetraphenolborate. This is why I ask earlier at what point did it precipitate. Their video says you acidify the sample. Also note it starts as green, and ends in red/orange. If done correctly. So this changes things @taricha how do you think?

"This kit tests for QAC using the Direct Reading Titrator method. Range and sensitivity is 0-1,000 ppm/20 ppm, 0-5,000 ppm/100 ppm with dilution.

A masked bromphenol blue indicator is added to the sample and turns green. Sodium tetraphenylboron is added to complex the QAC and the color changes to red. This method is best suited to higher QAC concentrations."
Directly from their website. Masked bromophenol is not Methyl orange. Also because sodium tetraphenyl borate can complex with a lot of things, you see it can change color to a lot of things.

 

[DrZoidburg]

https://lamotte.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=qac+test+kit

 

[jda]

Some of this might actually matter if a known product with a known amount of polyquat did not act the exact same way. Don't forget that people who have seen results and know what is in it have not been wrong yet. Either pure gaslighting, as described above, lack of knowledge or just maybe on the Payroll of the stalling UWC.

The grassy knoll single shooter conspiracy theory bullet did not have a second bullet made for the same reason that acted the same way. Like I said before, just stop feeding the trolls. If the behavior should shift from trollish and gaslighting to helpful, then maybe... but as I outline like almost 15 pages ago, these edge case deniers are the reason why a company like this can continue to operate without integrity. I can bet that if Dr Zoidberg was a real person and a real family member got sick because of a strange substance, they would believe the 99% and not the 1%, but there would be some other jerk touting the 1% for some unconscionable reason.

 

[DrZoidburg]

@jda I have a strong feeling @UWC is right. It may have also been proved without the testers even realizing it.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Also I'm on nobodys pay roll. That's laughable. Do I think it's cool to lose a aquarium to something? Absolutely not. Do I think it has any polyquaternium? No not really.

 

[jda]

You should do all of your testing and keep it to yourself so that when you find out that they are liars that you don't look like a fool who tried to defend them. Secret bacteria that only they know about that does not multiply in saltwater which is why it needs to be constantly added (on some posts) but needs to be cultured in saltwater since nobody can find any in the bottle using ANY method (in other posts). No shelf date. Maybe you are new to the hobby with a May 2021 start date and were not around for their BS, the same kind of behavior happened with some of their other products too - this whole thing started from some bogus claims about Purge which sent a local to do a full assay of the products since he owns a lab where the results are relied upon by . I have seen what is in this... search my posts back a few years and see if I have been wrong about ANYTHING.

"Not really" is not good enough - if you were any kind of a legit scientist at all you would know this. Figure it out on your own, including why the behavior is nearly identical to a known quat, and then take a dump on somebody else's work when you know something. Then, have a handful of peers review your work like @traicha did before you post. Is there no quat in algaefix either? I suppose that API got federal approval and made labels for their bottle to not put any quat in the bottle?

Next, you can figure out why the new magical bacteria has not been purchased, absorbed or otherwise incorporated into a federal program or private enterprise for more important uses since it would be a significant scientific discovery. Or just realize that some dudes who maintain aquariums found that using some known substances like organic carbon and quat to keep their client's tanks looking good should try and mix them up, bottle it and sell it.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, did you see the posts on here where some members have said that they got PMs from UMC confirming that there is quat in there. They were going to explain what and how it was used for, but crickets... Some PMs said something about preservative, others said other things... but not RO/DI water like labeled. I strongly suggest that you go back and read these and even see if the posters will send you a screen shot - I have seen some that got sent to me. They have not denied the use of Quat when they are quick to deny other things. What do you think that UWC is right about, that there IS quat in there... never a denial and even some admittance, albeit in private?

Add all of this up... it doen't even require long division, to carry the one or anything tricky...

dangit! Just fed the trolls! Ok, this is the only time because if they are still trolling, then beyond anybody's help.

 

[jcolliii]

I must have missed this... who said they got a pm from uwc confirming quat as an ingredient?

 

[TMB]

@jda , I don’t see your response as feeding trolls. I appreciate you calling the spade a spade so to speak. The views being expresses to cast doubt on what is being discussed here, only serve to confuse the layperson ( like me). I think this is by design too, just confuse everyone and the “sheep” will resume following bad advise. Most of the time, as you’ve repeatedly said, it’s money motivated. I appreciate all that have contributed to this threading a material way, so please carry on.
One more thing, I’ve never used this product or any other product like it and have no intention to do so, so I have no dog in the fight. What I am interested in though is REAL information that pushes the hobby forward.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Feed the trolls my foot you guys are the trolls. @jda This is what I saw not some random private message. These are not polyquaternium.
polyquaternium is quaternary compound. (4 bonds to nitrogen)

Figure it out on your own, including why the behavior is nearly identical to a known quat

I got it figured out.

Not sure how widely known this is. With the right manipulation bacteria can produce polymides or strait poly, aspartic acid. This is most easily achieved with certain bacillus and Cyanobacteria species. When they are “forced” to produce poly, this adds a function for aquarium use that is very good at removing flocculants and is very good for clearing water

By this I think they mean polyamides or straight chain polyamides, and aspartic acid. All can fool things.

Look at what happened when adding it to PO4 checker.
Look at what happened when trying to titrate it with lamotte test kit. (which in video shows nothing except color) and in vials it is not apparent either. No precipitation.
If you know how the PO4 ascorbic acid method works it used a molybdenum salt also. (Theirs is modified)This is why there is a blue color though for the checker to analyze. These can complex with a lot of things. Insoluble precipitate complex with amino acids, and or molybdenum oxides. (both are a bluish grey color like described) Obvious to why the checker would fail.
If you know how sodium tetraphenylborate in lamotte test kit will react with amino acids. It will also form insoluble precipitates with amino acids.
Both these test caused this with vibrant but in other test with algaefix it did not?

 

[MnFish1]

Not even curious?

It contains an algaecide (polyquaternary ammonium) similar to that found in AlgeaFix. In similar proportion as well.

The scientific evidence is pretty convincing.

I do not think you can state that the amount is similar at all to that found in Algaefix - unless I missed something.

 

[MnFish1]

It is - AFAIK - a regulation - that above a certain percentage of QAC, needs to be 'on the label' - and 'filed with the EPA. Algaefix and multiple other products have this designation. So - which is it - is the company ignoring federal law - or is the amount of QAC different (or perhaps a type that is not required to be reported - i.e. another chemical) - between Algaefix and Vibrant?

There are dozens of pond and aquarium products that have the EPA Label for QAC (used for algae control). I'm not going to debate the testing itself, becasue, I believe - I read a quote from UWC saying vibrant contained a small amount of QAC. Why is anyone even arguing or discussing whether this is true or not'. The question to me is 'is the QAC the active ingredient'. That I do not believe has been shown.

 

[LgTas]

I believe - I read a quote from UWC saying vibrant contained a small amount of QAC.

I didn't see this either...

Whether QAC is the active ingredient or not is irrelevant to me. I want to manage my aquarium in a particular way. UWC pushing the bacterial component in their marketing without even listing QAC in their ingredients list is deceptive and has led to me adding something I did not want to use and taking a risk that I didn't realise I had taken and therefore wasn't considering how to manage.

@UWC I've tagged you a few times now and I certainly have not seen anything where you categorically confirm or deny QAC other than alluding to having the answer but not wanting to tell us just yet. Well I think now is the time to enlighten us.

 

[MnFish1]

It's worth asking how much of this stuff is being detected in Vibrant, as compared to AlgaeFix where it is the main ingredient.

So I did dilutions of AlgaeFix and Vibrant each in my tank water (then did dried residues of 1 drop of each dilution) to see how low it had to go for each before the Bromphenol purple to blue effect stopped.
This is not a precise titration (which could be done), but part of the paper I'm working off of did use something similar to estimate a concentration.

The detection for both AlgaeFix and Vibrant occured at dilutions of 1/3, 1/10, 1/30, and 1/100....

So I went lower.

The effect was also detected at 1/100 (again), and 1/300, but not at 1/1000, 1/3000, or straight tank water. It appears the amount of quaternary ammonium compounds in vibrant and algaefix may be similar to within a factor of 3.

(Obviously diluting with tank water like this, pH is essentially the same across all of these except the pure AlgaeFix & vibrant.)

BTW - I looked through this again. This is actually interesting. What would also be nice to have would be a 3.5 percent solution of the chemical in question (the one in algaefix) - and use that as a positive control. I read this experiment differently before - as compared to the method in the paper. My understanding of the original paper was that the test is designed to detect minuscule residual QAC - off of dried surfaces. To me - I see color differences - i.e. they are not all the same comparing vibrant to algaefix. But - it could just be my squinting.