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

[ScottB]

It doesn't have fluconazole. There isn't a reason to suspect it. The manufacturer thinks one of the bacterial strains may eat algae. Other than that its just a bunch of bacteria meant to outcompete algae and scavenge.

That does seem to be the consensus. But keep reading. This is getting very interesting if you have some time to spare and scientific process is ur thing.

 

[MnFish1]

The quat in AlgaeFix has nearly the same instructions, results and timeline of killing and reducing algae. It is effective at that. Quat works in marine tanks, as @taricha indicated above. You can probably use this as a baseline fact.

Agree they seem similar - the dosage is 'different' - and algae fix is not safe for crustaceans - at least in freshwater. (in saltwater its supposedly 'ok' (there are 2 different products - with seemingly the same ingredient). So - in fact - who knows. my question is 'does it work' - or 'does Algaefix work. AFAIK there are also 2 different vibrant products - for fresh and saltwater. As I've already said - I wouldn't use it again in my reef tank for 1,000,000 $ (ok - maybe for that)

 

[MnFish1]

The qac in algae fix is polyqac which is more specific to algae rather than bacteria. I don’t think I could do much more if the final argument is “I can’t see it” regarding the images. Ask yourself as a logical person. Whats more likely: some guy in a garage purifies some exotic strain of algae eating bacteria? Or just spikes it with polyqac, a common algaecide with proven efficacy and safety for aquariums.

I didnt say you were wrong - I said I cant see it. Meaning - I literally can't see it - but I believe you can see it. And if you can see it - I trust that you can see it. AND - given the fact (I believe its fact) - that bacteria do not do well in the presence of that chemical - it would be hard for me to understand how it could be 'bacteria' in the bottle'. I also don't know the motive why the company would say its bacteria - if its a chemical - as long as it 'works' (and is non-toxic). It is quite an interesting discussion.

 

[jeffww]

I have no horse in this game. I don’t sell anything. They can say whatever they want to sell a 5 dollar product for 30 bucks. Furthermore, Just like algaefix is safe for most tanks. The qac in vibrant probably has similar toxicology and can kill algae but not recalcitrant bacteria. I also conspicuously see that uwc has never denied that there is qac in their product.

 

[taricha]

For those who want to look into details on AlgaeFix, here's their EPA submission when they said "We are also reconfirming our request for an 'alternate brand name' of: AlgaeFix Marine"
AlgaeFix EPA submission [pdf]
The document shows all the possible label substitutions for "Pond", "Aquarium", "Marine" etc. but all are the same, in that they contain 4.5% of the quaternary ammonium (info page on that chemical).
Current MSDS sheets for the different labels of Algaefix confirm they are still 4.5% of that active ingredient.

I would simply note that the label on my bottle of vibrant says it contains 3.5% "Other Ingredients" in addition to 95% cultured bacteria blend, 1% aminos, and 0.5% vinegar.

If this "Other Ingredients" in vibrant were in fact quaternary ammonium compounds it would be completely consistent with what I posted above, the very close similarities in how dilute a solution of algaefix and vibrant could still be detected by this Bromophenol blue effect:

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.

 

[ScottB]

For those who want to look into details on AlgaeFix, here's their EPA submission when they said "We are also reconfirming our request for an 'alternate brand name' of: AlgaeFix Marine"
AlgaeFix EPA submission [pdf]
The document shows all the possible label substitutions for "Pond", "Aquarium", "Marine" etc. but all are the same, in that they contain 4.5% of the quaternary ammonium (info page on that chemical).
Current MSDS sheets for the different labels of Algaefix confirm they are still 4.5% of that active ingredient.

I would simply note that the label on my bottle of vibrant says it contains 3.5% "Other Ingredients" in addition to 95% cultured bacteria blend, 1% aminos, and 0.5% vinegar.

If this "Other Ingredients" in vibrant were in fact quaternary ammonium compounds it would be completely consistent with what I posted above, the very close similarities in how dilute a solution of algaefix and vibrant could still be detected by this Bromophenol blue effect:

GHS Label Elements Irritant​

GHS Label Elements Aquatic Toxicity​

So quat is an algaecide for swimming pools. Cool. So the next time my $1,000 salt/chlorine generator fails on my pool, I can just dump in some Vibrant.

This has been a fascinating process to witness. Really appreciate everyones contribution to the discussion.

 

[taricha]

So quat is an algaecide for swimming pools. Cool. So the next time my $1,000 salt/chlorine generator fails on my pool, I can just dump in some Vibrant.

Hah, vibrant would be expensive for a pool!
but one tiny detail...
See, AlgaeFix tells you specifically what it is. And that it is this chemical with known functions and effects and is used safely for algae control, for pools, (and for contact lenses too!)
Vibrant we are just detecting similar amounts of some "quat". At this point it would be more reassuring if they could tell us that it is in fact the one in algaefix - because that we know what and how it works.
Many other quaternary ammonia compounds are far more harmful than what's in algaefix, and we have no assurances what this particular chemical that we are detecting in vibrant actually is.

 

[MnFish1]

GHS Label Elements Irritant​

GHS Label Elements Aquatic Toxicity​

So quat is an algaecide for swimming pools. Cool. So the next time my $1,000 salt/chlorine generator fails on my pool, I can just dump in some Vibrant.

This has been a fascinating process to witness. Really appreciate everyones contribution to the discussion.

But - on their website - its different than what you were saying it says :

• 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend
• 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid)
• 0.5% Vinegar
• 3.5% RO/DI Water

So - I do not see a couple things. 1 - I don't see any evidence that the 3.5 percent represents a QAC and 2 - it doesn't make real sense anyway - what is the supposed 5 percent cultured bacterial blend mixed in?

I still don't get how a compound thats removed by activated carbon can continue to work for weeks after addition.

 

[ScottB]

Hah, vibrant would be expensive for a pool!
but one tiny detail...
See, AlgaeFix tells you specifically what it is. And that it is this chemical with known functions and effects and is used safely for algae control, for pools, (and for contact lenses too!)
Vibrant we are just detecting similar amounts of some "quat". At this point it would be more reassuring if they could tell us that it is in fact the one in algaefix - because that we know what and how it works.
Many other quaternary ammonia compounds are far more harmful than what's in algaefix, and we have no assurances what this particular chemical that we are detecting in vibrant actually is.

I think like @jeffww that they took the simplest route for the "3.5% other" and just copied what is in algaefix. Throw in some spores and carbon and market it "natural".

I know some folks have had some negative outcomes with Vibrant, but the vast majority SEEM to do pretty well with it. I personally have no troubles and decent outcomes dosing at the low recommended level. For chrysophytes in particular.

But we've all read around here about people dosing double & triple. Clearly that is going to cause some troubles.

 

[MnFish1]

AlgaeFix marine explicitly contains one of these quaternary ammonia compounds as the ingredient, and in my tank it works great at killing algae - shows no noticeable (to me) effect on fish or inverts, and an aquabiomics sample done a month or so after I did several rounds of algaefix reported that my microbiome was "textbook normal".

So, yes. It's totally possible for these compounds to be used as an algacide in a reef tank and kill algae, and not nuke everything.


Regarding pH....
Approximate pH of AlgaeFix marine was ~6.1 and Vibrant was ~6.1-6.2
The dried residues of each was also slightly acidic, not strongly basic. Here's the dried residues with Phenol Red (yellow at pH 6.8 to Red at 8.4, comes out of the bottle red)

L to R: Vibrant, tap water, Algaefix

So the shift to blue color in this test isn't from high pH in the dried drops.

just a technical question - why are you drying items on a slide - and then measuring? I'm assuming because when they were looking for extremely tiny residual QAC's thats the way they did it in the paper? In other words - using a very highly concentrated form ie. the dehydrated version - I'm not sure tells you what you want to know. Unfortunately I believe when someone did what looked like a 'liquid' test - I could not see the picture well itself - so I couldnt see the differences.

 

[MnFish1]

I think like @jeffww that they took the simplest route for the "3.5% other" and just copied what is in algaefix. Throw in some spores and carbon and market it "natural".

I know some folks have had some negative outcomes with Vibrant, but the vast majority SEEM to do pretty well with it. I personally have no troubles and decent outcomes dosing at the low recommended level. For chrysophytes in particular.

But we've all read around here about people dosing double & triple. Clearly that is going to cause some troubles.

BTW - my GUESS - is that based on the information here there are some ingredients similar to Algaefix. The dosages are different - Algaefix is every 3 days initially, vibrant is once/week. Lets assume that there is 3.5 % QAC in vibrant and 4.5% in Algaefix. This would suggest (to me) that vibrant would be much less efficient than algae fix given the amount used per week. To me this suggests an additional ingredient in vibrant - i.e. some kind of spore or bacterial stimulant (in addition to the vinegar) - which will increase algae death. Certain types of pseudomonas, for example - can live in bottles of betadine (the iodine disinfectant) - so I suppose other bacteria can live in a QAC environment. Either way - there are lots of articles out there - showing bacteria can effect algae growth (negatively) - the presence of a highly anionic compound in dehydrated condition - to me does not completely rule out the possibility that there are also bacteria in the 'mix'.

 

[ScottB]

But - on their website - its different than what you were saying it says :

• 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend
• 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid)
• 0.5% Vinegar
• 3.5% RO/DI Water

So - I do not see a couple things. 1 - I don't see any evidence that the 3.5 percent represents a QAC and 2 - it doesn't make real sense anyway - what is the supposed 5 percent cultured bacterial blend mixed in?

I still don't get how a compound thats removed by activated carbon can continue to work for weeks after addition.

I don't have a bottle to look at anymore but I was quoting @taricha

I would simply note that the label on my bottle of vibrant says it contains 3.5% "Other Ingredients" in addition to 95% cultured bacteria blend, 1% aminos, and 0.5% vinegar.

I am not sure about ongoing effectiveness of a given dose over time. Are you asking about Vibrant or quat? Vibrant is supposed to be dosed weekly or biweekly. In my own system, I've only ever dosed it for chryso which it eliminated pretty quick. Then GHA replaced it immediately. As I had no ill effects with my sticks (and did still have some nutrient to spare) I kept going for another 3 weeks or so until all the "lit up" algae was gone and only the shaded GHA was left. Then stopped and tossed the bottle. That behavior had me concerned it contained Fluc.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't have a bottle to look at anymore but I was quoting @taricha


I am not sure about ongoing effectiveness of a given dose over time. Are you asking about Vibrant or quat? Vibrant is supposed to be dosed weekly or biweekly. In my own system, I've only ever dosed it for chryso which it eliminated pretty quick. Then GHA replaced it immediately. As I had no ill effects with my sticks (and did still have some nutrient to spare) I kept going for another 3 weeks or so until all the "lit up" algae was gone and only the shaded GHA was left. Then stopped and tossed the bottle. That behavior had me concerned it contained Fluc.

What I was saying is - Lets assume vibrant has 3.5 % QAC (which we don't know) - and Algaefix has 4.5% which we do know).

The dose per 10 gallons for each one is 1 ml. So - if you do one dose - of each by definition, the concentration in the vibrant tank is going to be lower than the Algaefix tank. Then - with algaefix the recommended dose is every 3 days - until the algae is 'gone' - then once/week. Whereas vibrant is every 7 days - 14 days. meaning that now the concentration of the purported active ingredient is going to be much lower in a vibrant tank than an algae fix tank on day 7. Yet - both products work well. Suggesting to me that Vibrant is not just a copy of algae fix marine. But - again - its just an observation - no proof. I did not see anything about using carbon/filtration/skimming with algae fix. I know you can use vibrant with no changes - which also is weird given that QACS are quickly removed by carbon and just 'organic matter' i.e. they are unstable (which is why they kill bacteria on surfaces - once they hit the bacteria - they react chemically)

 

[jda]

I still don't get how a compound thats removed by activated carbon can continue to work for weeks after addition.

I am no pro, but from what I understand, if absorbed immediately, it takes quite some time for the effects to be realized in some cases... death is not instant.

The same things happens with AlgaeFix, so a polyquat is known to work in marine tanks to kill algae well.

Edit: at this point, who cares if there is bacteria in the mix. Can you trust them? I asked this once and nobody really answered, but could bacteria live in a bottle with a QAC at this level? ...and a good amount of organic carbon?

 

[MnFish1]

I am no pro, but from what I understand, if absorbed immediately, it takes quite some time for the effects to be realized in some cases... death is not instant.

The same things happens with AlgaeFix, so a polyquat is known to work in marine tanks to kill algae well.

yes - agreed - What I don't understand about this product - and multiple others in our 'hobby' - is how they get away with not supplying their ingredients. For example - lets pretend - its all bacteria - what if your kid drinks is. For example lets pretend - its all QAC - what if your kid drinks it. I mean it should not be up to 'us' - and by 'us' I mean @taricha and the other chemists - who have the ability to do the testing (My inorganic and organic chemistry are decades behind me - so I know just enough to be dangerous). My focus during my life was designing experiments - so I often comment on that - people find that off-putting at times - but - its my area of expertise. I have kind of decided - unless I know the ingredient - I won't add it to my tank. Why? Because - as most products suggest a maintenence dose can be used once the problem is solved. Another poster here said - I've been adding xxx and not having repeat problems. I stopped adding vibrant and I havent had problems - I'm not sure how to reconcile this. I guess - we've decided its not fluconazole - it might contain some QAC - and probably does - and might contain other bacterial spore/bacteria. With repeated dosing it could also be the 5% vinegar - which people haven't (that I have seen) commented on.

In other words @jda - I'm no pro either

 

[MnFish1]

I am no pro, but from what I understand, if absorbed immediately, it takes quite some time for the effects to be realized in some cases... death is not instant.

The same things happens with AlgaeFix, so a polyquat is known to work in marine tanks to kill algae well.

Edit: at this point, who cares if there is bacteria in the mix. Can you trust them? I asked this once and nobody really answered, but could bacteria live in a bottle with a QAC at this level? ...and a good amount of organic carbon?

I tried to answer it earlier. For example Pseudomonas (which can decrease ammonia) - can live in betadine - which at one time was thought to kill everything (thats why they rub it all over you before surgery). My guess is there is a polymer - of some kind - that could hold onto the QAC - and yet allow bacteria. I have not done the calculations - with regards to the 5 percent vinegar dose the tank would be getting if one dosed 1 ml per 10 gallons - as compared to those who do vinegar dosing.

 

[Spare time]

That does seem to be the cosensus. But keep reading. This is getting very interesting if you have some time to spare and scientific process is ur thing.

You could always just ask them what bacteria species are in it and what not. I think my main thing with this thread is that, unless fluconazole was the only possible way that gha and bryopsis can die, there is no reason to suspect that fluconazole is in the product. Therefore I am just wondering why not just ask the manufacturer what bacterial species are in it. There is not reason to suspect that they are lying that 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend, 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid), 0.5% Vinegar, 3.5% RO/DI Water are not the ingredients. Everyone here is seemingly turning this into a conspiracy of secret ingredients based off of nothing other than algae can die from a result of the product. I don't find this product controversial.

 

[taricha]

But - on their website - its different...

the actual bottle says...


And google confirms that label elsewhere.

To me this suggests an additional ingredient in vibrant - i.e. some kind of spore or bacterial stimulant (in addition to the vinegar) - which will increase algae death. Certain types of pseudomonas, for example - can live in bottles of betadine (the iodine disinfectant) - so I suppose other bacteria can live in a QAC environment.

A fine hypothetical, and one that the makers may claim is true.
But it's totally unnecessary to invoke a hypothetical bacterial activity to explain the algae-killing effect of Vibrant, when the algacidal chemical can be directly measured as comparable in amount to a known effective algicide (AlgaeFix).

 

[jda]

There is not reason to suspect that they are lying that 95% Cultured Bacteria Blend, 1% Amino Acids (Aspartic Acid), 0.5% Vinegar, 3.5% RO/DI Water are not the ingredients.

The last few pages of this thread have indeed shown that those contents are not accurate and that that there are some some that are not listed.

 

[taricha]

just a technical question - why are you drying items on a slide - and then measuring? I'm assuming because when they were looking for extremely tiny residual QAC's thats the way they did it in the paper?

Coincidentally, the detection of 1/300 dilution (but not 1/1000) of algaefix (4.5% QAC) in tank water = 150 ppm which is right in line with the detection sensitivity they found of ~100 ppm.