It sounds like you are ruling out vinegar or alcohol carbon sources because of the COD? That doesn't make sense to me, as any alcohol or any organic acid would increase COD.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No offense. This is why I said your method is 'faulty'. I guess I should have bolded the part that said 'I LAUD YOUR EFFORTS' - so you wouldn't snark back at me - or at least that was my perception. You have brought a number of correlations forward - and as I already said:
Gotcha.
Just that the general impression from your comments was that you gave significant credence to the idea that the content labeling is accurate. I realize you acknowledged it could be incorrect, it was not my intention to be hostile.
Its completely obvious - that companies say all sorts of things - look at those balance bracelets. Though they have been widely disproven - they still sell a ton. My issue here is with the method - not the conclusion. Hope you can see the difference
Per the FDA:
Again, correct me if I'm wrong. There are different QACs with different alkyl or aryl groups. Hypothetically, if the type of QAC is different, they may have different COD while having similar quat reactions.
Thee fda comment had nothing to do with this - except that specific comment it is the EPA that regulates these things .Per the FDA:
"There are limitations to FDA oversight of claims in dietary supplement labeling. For example, FDA reviews substantiation for claims as resources permit."
"Federal law does not require dietary supplements to be proven safe to FDA's satisfaction before they are marketed."
"Some supplements have had to be recalled because of proven or potential harmful effects. Reasons for these recalls include
In addition, unscrupulous manufacturers have tried to sell bogus products that should not be on the market at all."
- microbiological, pesticide, and heavy metal contamination
- absence of a dietary ingredient claimed to be in the product
- the presence of more or less than the amount of the dietary ingredient claimed on the label
FDA 101: Dietary Supplements
Dietary supplements can help improve health but can also have risks. Get the facts on supplements and how the FDA regulates them to help keep you safe.www.fda.gov
Gotcha, you only mentioned working at the FDA and disagreeing with the comment. So I connected those dots.
So I read the AlgaeFix EPA registration and it does contains the bacteria, Bacillus licheniformis S83086. "Contains a minimum of 2.25 x 108 Colony Forming Units."I had wanted to revisit my bacterial growth results posted around page 3 of this thread to see if I did it wrong or if in fact bacteria can survive in the quat-like chemical detected in Vibrant and the known quat in AlgaeFix. The short version is that random contamination in the bottles can explain everything I've seen so far just fine.
This is instant ocean at 1.026 enriched with LB broth + glucose (same media that I cultured up products on in page 3.) Picture after 7 days.
I added 1 drop (0.05mL) of each of the following
1 & 2 duplicates - Distilled water (stayed clear for 7+ days)
3 & 4 duplicates - Vibrant run through an 0.22um syringe filter (stayed clear for 7+ days)
5 & 6 duplicates - Vibrant the same, except syringe filter removed (cloudy by 57hr)
7 AlgaeFix (cloudy by 45hr)
8 MicroBacter7 (cloudy by 48 hours)
9 Aquarium water (cloudy by 18 hrs)
Takeaways:
1) I'm not crazy nor was the culture-up necessarily flawed. Vibrant did contain viable bacteria, which could be excluded by a syringe filter.
2) AlgaeFix also cultured up bacteria just the same, so bacteria can survive in the polyquat in question.
3) This kind of culture up does not distinguish between bona fide spore containing products (MB7) and irrelevant contamination in non bacterial products (AlgaeFix). AlgaeFix clouded up faster in fact.
4) therefore nothing can be concluded from my previous culture-up of vibrant (and the other products) except that they are not sterile. Contamination can exist in vibrant just as easily as in algaefix.
5) point 4 about random contaminants is further evidenced by the aquabiomics report in post 58 that showed some of the most prevalent bacteria from my combined cultures to be strains that no one would want and have no business in bottled products. Aquabiomics told me that by email, many of the strains found are not ones that would be added intentionally (most prevalent was a genus associated with fish disease).
AlgaeFix's quat is AKA Busan 77 as far as I can tell. That is a mandatory EPA registrable chemical. Your article only further suggests that if Vibrant does have the same active ingredient as AlgaeFix, they ought to have registered it and made it known to consumers prior to purchase. Obviously, they aren't even defending themselves anymore so it makes one wonder.
