Pressure on False Claim Products

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Did/Does Seahem actually contain aluminum now?

Always has...

Seachem - PhosGuard

www.seachem.com

 

[KrisReef]

I’m targeting both Brightwell and Seachem on this alk/pH product for two critical reasons:

1. It is self evidently unable to do what it claims. There’s no debate about testing or methods or errors or wrong conditions or wrong organisms examined. Almost no other product I am aware of fits this description. The ones you mention do not. If I cannot convince one or both of these companies to change the description or drop the product, there is no possible hope for more complex issues such as Seachem Prime, bottled bacteria, denitrification media, etc.

2. The effect on a reef tank for someone who believes the false claims can be significant and negative.

Randy
If our Lord Jesus made a product that defied normal chemical priciples would you except the miracle product (because of the manufacturer) or would you at least test it to see if HIS claims were true?

Merry Christmas to all!

Thanks Randy for keeping these other miracle workers honest by questioning their amazing and impossible claims that don't fit the physical and chemical constraints that normally apply in our environment.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Premium Aquatics is proceeding as hoped, asking Brightwell about the product:

Brightwell Boost pH+

I'd like to suggest that you drop the Brightwell product Boost pH+ from your product line since it is misleading consumers about what it can do. Clearly, it cannot do what you (on your web site) and they claim. https://premiumaquatics.com/products/brightwell-aquatics-boost-ph-250ml.html...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Cell]

It is a perfect response by Premium Aquatics and should help those that believe pressuring vendors for accountability with the products they sell is some sort of unwarranted attack. It's also a testament to Premium Aquatics truly caring about its customers and customer feedback, at least in words at the moment. I am confident actions will follow though.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I received an email From Jack Kent today. I’m extremely disappointed with it, as it accuses me of making untrue comments, that they are recording my comments as if I have some ulterior motive that might require further action,, and reasserts the product claim as being true.

I hope we can resolve this issue, and I will hold off on recounting the details in the hope that we can.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I also forwarded to Jack part of my discussion with a technical person at Seachem, since the products and claims are so similar. The Seachem folks seem to understand the processes taking place, but not that those processes necessarily raise alkalinity. The Seachem response to my discussion below is still pending.

I will add that discussion here so folks can understand how the processes impact alk.

Seachem writing in italics.

Thank you for the additional clarification. Let me clarify why I believe you are incorrect about the alkalinity effect despite being correct about all of the processes taking place.

You wrote:

2. Adjusting the carbonate buffering system. It accomplishes this by converting carbonic acid to bicarbonate and bicarbonate to carbonate.


H2CO3 + OH- > H2O + HCO3-

HCO3- + OH- > H2O + CO3 2-


Depending on the amount of dissolved CO2 in solution there may also be an effect of converting it to bicarbonate, reducing the pool of gas to be converted to carbonic acid. However, given the prevalence of carbonates in properly maintained salt water, especially reef, aquaria, this effect will be minor, but I mention it for completeness sake.


Certainly the equations and processes are correct. It does the rebalancing that you mention. Unfortunately for users expecting no alk increase, carbonate provides 2 units of alkalinity while bicarbonate provides only one.



This is the definition of alkalinity in seawater, and is, in fact, what is quantified in an alkalinity titration:


TA = [HCO3–] + 2[CO3—] + [B(OH)4–] + [OH–] + [Si(OH)3O–] + [MgOH+] + [HPO4—] + 2[PO4—] – [H+]


One can see that not only is OH- included, but that CO3-- adds double the alk of bicarbonate. The reaction of bicarbonate with hydroxide shown above is an alkalinity neutral process. Lose one OH- (-1 alk) lose one bicarbonate (-1 alk) and gain one carbonate (+2 alk).v Thus, when you add hydroxide, it instantly boosts alk. Most of it does go on to convert bicarbonate to carbonate, but that process still raises alk!

You also said:

1. The OH- neutralizing acids which are present in all aquarium ecosystems.

Sure. That's what happens to the acid source bicarbonate, but that conversion adds alk.

In fact, ANY acid source that adding hydroxide to seawater "binds up" will add alkalinity. That is just a simple chemistry fact.

Any acid converted to its conjugate base by adding hydroxide will have to be reacidified in an alkalinity titration to get down to pH 4.3 or so. I could show lots of examples, but let's take the biggest one off the alk definition: borate/boric acid. Most boron is actually present as boric acid in seawater at pH 8. The hydroxide can react with it, forming borate, which is in the alk definition and gets detected:

B(OH)3 + OH- --> B(OH)4-

The same is true of ANY acid that is impacted by adding hydroxide to seawater, including any organic acids that might be impacted by the hydroxide addition. Converting them to their conjugate base adds alkalinity because they must be retitrated in an alkalinity titration.

Thank you for reading.

Randy

 

[areefer01]

Hmm...wonder how LED lighting with UV comes into play here...

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

I received an email From Jack Kent today. I’m extremely disappointed with it, as it accuses me of making untrue comments, that they are recording my comments as if I have some ulterior motive that might require further action,, and reasserts the product claim as being true.

I hope we can resolve this issue, and I will hold off on recounting the details in the hope that we can.

Sorry to hear. That sort of thing has been a concern of mine whenever I criticize some company’s fish medications. I know some of my comments have been forwarded to the companies, but I’ve only been threatened once, years ago. I sign off every post with a disclaimer, which I hope offers some protection. I also formed an LLC. My understanding is that also offers some personal liability protection.

Jay

 

[Dan_P]

I received an email From Jack Kent today. I’m extremely disappointed with it, as it accuses me of making untrue comments, that they are recording my comments as if I have some ulterior motive that might require further action,, and reasserts the product claim as being true.

I hope we can resolve this issue, and I will hold off on recounting the details in the hope that we can.

A little time in the lab can provide you with exhibit A that shows you are correct and they are wrong. Let me know.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I received an email From Jack Kent today. I’m extremely disappointed with it, as it accuses me of making untrue comments, that they are recording my comments as if I have some ulterior motive that might require further action,, and reasserts the product claim as being true.

I hope we can resolve this issue, and I will hold off on recounting the details in the hope that we can.

You are big boy Randy and may be 100% correct, but from where I sit if they sue you, then you have to prove to a judge that you are correct. That, as you know, is often far easier said than done. The judge is not a chemist and paid ”experts” will say anything for money. They have a lot of revenue on the line and one would therefore presume, they would throw a lot of money at protecting it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

You are big boy Randy and may be 100% correct, but from where is sit if they sue you, then you have to prove to a judge that you are correct. That, as you know, is often far easier said than done. They have a lot of revenue on the line and one would therefore presume, they would throw a lot of money at protecting it.

I understand. That’s why I hope it can be resolved.

 

[jda]

If you all are not wrong, then nobody can really sue you. They can file suit, but if they do it just silence or intimidate you and they are wrong then they are liable for your expenses including your time and your attorney fees, but also damages to you. Personal damages can add up, especially if you are a well-known type of person who has a rep. Don't worry about this too much. Why do any of you think that I was not totally crushed in the past for some of my things... I was not wrong.

Here is my experience..
Some employee or owner says that they are going to sue you - bluster... you are onto something
Get a nastygram from a real attorney - they hope that you stop, but they don't have much

In a civil case, they have to prove damages. This will require discovery and likely expert witnesses on both sides. You would be able to subpoena and question anybody who works there that had a hand in this product development. They also would have to reveal their exact forumla, etc. If you are not wrong, then there are no damages. None.

Most of the time it comes down to the strength of the experts. A dude in a reefing supplement company with a history of misleading statements and products against a nationally recognized chemistry experts, and likely all of his friends in the industry, is probably like bringing a pickup truck to a tank fight.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

A little time in the lab can provide you with exhibit A that shows you are correct and they are wrong. Let me know.

Thanks. I hope that is not needed using their exact product, and discussion can resolve it.

Based on previous experiments that I have published when adding hydroxide to seawater, I can roughly predict the effect.

In this article I added 0.5 meq/L (1.4 dKH) of hydroxide to fresh IO, I saw a pH boost of 0.66 pH units that then fades as the solution pulled in CO2. The effect isn’t exactly linear, and varies with the starting pH, but suggests that a reasonable 0.2 pH unit boost would require about 0.4 dKH of alk.

Chemistry And The Aquarium: The Relationship Between Alkalinity And pH

Randy answers many questions in this complex relationship.

reefs.com

https://reefs.com/magazine/chemistry-and-the-aquarium-the-relationship-between-alkalinity-and-ph/

 

[Dan_P]

Thanks. I hope that is not needed using their exact product, and discussion can resolve it.

Based on previous experiments that I have published when adding hydroxide to seawater, I can roughly predict the effect.

In this article I added 0.5 meq/L (1.4 dKH) of hydroxide to fresh IO, I saw a pH boost of 0.66 pH units that then fades as the solution pulled in CO2. The effect isn’t exactly linear, and varies with the starting pH, but suggests that a reasonable 0.2 pH unit boost would require about 0.4 dKH of alk.

Chemistry And The Aquarium: The Relationship Between Alkalinity And pH

Randy answers many questions in this complex relationship.

reefs.com

https://reefs.com/magazine/chemistry-and-the-aquarium-the-relationship-between-alkalinity-and-ph/

Heck anybody can sell sodium hydroxide. There must be a proprietary ingredient that is behind the claims

Standing by.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Heck anybody can sell sodium hydroxide. There must be a proprietary ingredient that is behind the claims

Standing by.

Yeah, vinegar!

 

[Dan_P]

Yeah, vinegar!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Heck anybody can sell sodium hydroxide. There must be a proprietary ingredient that is behind the claims

Standing by.

Brightwell says this:

Warning: Contains caustic sodium and potassium hydroxides in a proprietary base;

And Seachem literally says this in the FAQ section:

https://www.aquavitro.com/balance.php:

How do I know if I should use balance or eight.four to raise pH in my reef aquarium? Do they do the same thing?

A: No, these are actually two very different products. eight.four is a buffer that will raise both pH and KH (alkalinity) in your aquarium by adding a blend of buffering agents such as carbonates and bicarbonates to your system. balance specifically targets pH only by re-establishing the proper bicarbonate/carbonate ratio by using a hydroxide blend to raise pH without having an impact on KH, calcium or magnesium levels. If your calcium, magnesium and alkalinity are all in the proper levels but pH is still low, you can use balance to correct this. If calcium, magnesium and/or alkalinity is also low in addition to pH, then you may want to use eight.four in addition to other products in the aquavitro range such as calcification or ions to address any other deficiencies.
They also say this:
balance™ is an optimized blend of sodium and potassium hydroxides with a NSW ratio (27:1) of sodium to potassium to avoid ionic imbalance with long term use.

Seachem did not dispute it is a pure hydroxide product in my email exchange shown above, and shows the effect coming from hydroxide and nothing else in their equations they provided (which are correct)..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Very likely the Aquavitro product and the Brightwell product are the same: a mix of sodium and potassium hydroxide to not mess with the Na/K ratio.

Curious that they worry about this ratio, and not anything else, including the alk effect. lol

 

[rtparty]

Not exactly a surprise that Jack would react that way. He won’t admit when he’s wrong

 

[Miami Reef]

Wouldn’t it be very easy for these companies to test their “theory” of pH+ not raising alkalinity? You can easily add some to saltwater and see the alk rise.