# What's in AE excel/easycarbo



## JamesC

I don't know what is used in AE's carbon or Easycarbo but I know for sure that Seachem's Excel is not a solution of glutaraldehyde. It is a solution containg Polycycloglutaracetal which is safer to use than Glutaraldehyde and acording to Seachem is more easily utilised by the plants. Glutaraldehyde is pretty nasty stuff and I'd be surprised if AE and Easy life use it.

To what I read on other forums it does appear that some people have used glutaraldehyde with success so who knows.

James




			
				davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> " In 1999 the HSC approved a proposal that exposure to glutaraldehyde should be controlled to a Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) of 0.05 parts per million, for both short-term (15 minutes) and long-term (8 hour time-weighted average) exposure. Peak vapour concentrations should not exceed this level.This change was prompted because of the impossibility of determining a safe exposure limit for glutaraldehyde. MELs require employers to prevent exposure to the substance "
> 
> http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf ... 001362.pdf
> l
> 
> The medical industry is working on ways of phasing out the use of this product currently.
> 
> Seachem are naturally tight lipped about their concentration but only because US federal law is loose in regards to this aldehyde. They are also keen to avoid associating themselves with the notion that it kills algae. For the moment I have stopped using this product and sealed it. I am concerned about exposure through evaporation of the tank into the sitting room , and rooting around in the tank after a water change at which point its concentrations are higher. Quite honestly i was looking into its contents to see if i Could make it myself and it now clear that this is not something i want to be touching at all.
> 
> http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/GL/glutaric_dialdehyde.html


----------



## davidcmadrid

*AE excel/easycarbo*



			
				JamesC said:
			
		

> I don't know what is used in AE's carbon or Easycarbo but I know for sure that Seachem's Excel is not a solution of glutaraldehyde.
> 
> James



According to their Mandatory MSDS it is , beyond Seachem are not saying anything. Its probably not fair to AE to have that discussion here though.


----------



## JamesC

*Re: AE excel/easycarbo*

I'm afraid it isn't glutaraldehyde. Seachem are quite open about this and have stated many times that it isn't glutaraldehyde. MSDS doesn't tell you anything about what is actually contains.

One of Seachem's many postings


> Flourish Excel can be used with snails and shrimps in the tank. Used as directed Flourish Excel is safe to dose to an aquarium. It is not actually Glutaraldehyde but, Polycycloglutaracetal. Polycycloglutaraldehyde is an isomeric form of glutaraldehyde... however it is less reactive and more easily utilized by plants as a carbon source.
> __________________
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Seachem Laboratories, Inc. http://www.seachem.com 888-SEACHEM
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



James


----------



## davidcmadrid

*Re: AE excel/easycarbo*

Generally speaking I dont understand why Seachem felt compelled to submit an MSDS with the toxic " non polymer " version but the fact is that they did and the symptoms on that MSDS match those of the non polymer version according the HSC ( UK) . In any event its been pointed out to me that in the UK when you sell a chemical in this manner you should have submitted an MSDS to the UK folks  of your own and i cant find one for AEs product MSDS  online so a copy of the MSDS should clear it up.


----------



## JamesC

*Re: AE excel/easycarbo*



			
				davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> Generally speaking I dont understand why Seachem felt compelled to submit an MSDS with the toxic " non polymer " version but the fact is that they did and the symptoms on that MSDS match those of the non polymer version according the HSC ( UK) .


Seachem are a bit secretive about eactly what they have done. All I know it that it isn't glutaraldehyde but an isomeric form of it. Because it is derived from glutaraldehyde, then this is what they are alowed to put on the msds. For obvious company secrecy they aren't going to list exactly what it is composed of. I work with msds's everyday at work and they are often a bit vague about what's in them. At the end of the day they are about the health and safety issues and not about what exactly they contain.

James


----------



## JamesC

I've done a bit of researching on this glutaraldehyde and what Seachem may have done. There are different possibilities but I'd guess they would go for a fairly simple option to keep costs down.

The chemical they state as Polycycloglutaracetal doesn't actually exist so it would seem that this name is just a generalised name. Glutaraldehyde has end aldehyde groups that are quite reactive when dissolved in water, readily forming cross-links to form polymers of varying length. They also combine with nitrogen groups in proteins to form additional cross-links. It is possibly from this where Seachem gets the name of Polycycloglutaracetal from by dissolving glutaraldehyde in water with another compound which is most likely an organic compound or an amino acid. An isomer is just a different form of the same chemical and whatever isomer that is formed can depend on different factors such as temperature or pH. So from what Seachem have said it would appear that they have created an isomer of glutaraldehyde. This would be a lot safer to handle than just glutaraldehyde by itself.

So in conclusion is Excel just a solution of glutaraldehyde? The answer I would say is no. But I would say that it is a solution of glutaraldehyde with another compound that reduces the toxicity without reducing the benefits to the plants.

Can you use a solution of glutaraldehyde by itself? Yes you could but remember it's not particularly nice stuf to handle, but should still work ok in your tank. If someone offers you a DIY liquid carbon source then please be very careful with it as there is no way of knowing exactly what is in the bottle.

James


----------



## Themuleous

Interesting James 

Sam


----------



## davidcmadrid

I have stopped using AEs carbon product totally and sent a sample of it to the Spanish State lab via my wifes sister who works there for a breakdown. The Excel product whilst even as above has dubious contents if the holes in the cheese lined up ( really do keep out of reach of children ! ) its from a company i would assume with a broad experience and resources to get the product to work and with broad quality control measures given the sensitve nature of the product.

I have not had a response from AE to  a request for a copy of the MSDS , nor details of potential toxicity to both humans and fauna alike in sufficent ( or what dose ). Initial investigations via the UK HSE and a number of other bodies suggest there is no MSDS available but in that sense its early days. Im not interested in the blurb on protecting trade secrets since it seems to me you would want to be nuts to try to make this stuff at home .. I wont be going back to using it for a number of reasons which i dont feel it appropriate to discuss just yet but i am in contact with more experienced members here than me and the local aquariast group.

At this stage , suffice to say " Go with the Excel if your using liquid carbon , no price difference and the muscle of a big lab behind the product ".


----------



## aaronnorth

very interesting James, i am just researching this some more myself and will post here any finding's,
thanks, Aaron


----------



## aaronnorth

> Having recently stumbled across various discussion threads relating to the use of Glutaraldehyde in the aquarium to promote aquatic plant growth, I thought I would research the topic a little more for my own edification. This is what I came up with. The commercially available product by Seachem called Flourish Excel TM has a rather oddly termed compound called â€˜Polycycloglutaracetalâ€™. Based on the curiously formulated name, it appears that Seachem just made it up to describe a concoction of aqueous Glutaraldehyde with one or more chemicals of undisclosed nature. It therefore follows, that you will not find this fictitious compound on any MSDS or official chemical register of compounds. Of course it is widely known that glutaraldehyde has algicidal properties at specific concentrations, along with uses as a fixative for electron microscopy. Glutaraldehyde is a small compound made up of a short carbon chain with an aldehyde functional group at each end. The chemical formula is HCO-(CH2)3-CHO. The terminal aldehyde groups are quite reactive and in aqueous (i.e. in water) form (> pH 7.0) glutaraldehyde molecules readily forms cross-links to form polymers of varying length. These oligo-/polymers also readily combine with nitrogen groups in proteins to form additional cross-links. Hence, this is the likely origin of â€˜Poly-â€˜ and â€˜â€“cyclo-â€˜ in the name â€˜Polycycloglutaracetalâ€™; the rest of the name is self-evident. So, as it would appear, Seachem has formulated the name to describe the behaviour of glutaraldehyde in water with the additional of some type of protein or other organic compound. The polymerisation capacity of glutaraldehyde to proteins is widely used in biomedical fields in regeneration of collagen and ligaments. Moreover, cross-linking of aqueous Glutaraldehyde with proteins involves more than a dozen different forms (e.g. isomers) depending on solution conditions (e.g. pH, temperature, etc.). These isomers are in equilibrium, so whatever isomer predominates in solution will depend on ambient conditions, and appears not to influence the beneficial net effect of the compound to plant growth. The figure provided by Seachem to describe the general structure of â€˜Polycycloglutaracetalâ€™ also corresponds well to the rationale proposed here (see
> 
> more info
> [url=http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS/PlantPackFundamentals.doc.pdf]http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS/Pla ... ls.doc.pdf
> http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS/StressGuard.doc.pdf
> 
> so excel is an aqueous solution of Gluteraldehyde, with an added chain of another organic copmound to produce polycycloglutaracetal?


----------



## davidcmadrid

That would sound logical based on what I have found out thus far bearing in mind I am a layman doing research. These are of interest also :

http://www.hse.gov.uk/asthma/glutaraldehyde.htm

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf ... 001362.pdf

This is recognised in the UK as a highly toxic substance that can even be absorbed through your skin ( note the caution with handling the medical profession go through and what a low bar in terms of ppm they descibe as toxic ). Now ask yourself if you put your hand in the tank after a water change or have you ever splashed any on your skin when measuring out , god forbid you got it in your eye . Given there is total secrecy surrounding this stuff the last thing you want is a DIY job without understanding or entirely trusting its background , the quality control that goes into its manufacture etc. ( think concentration  and how easy it is to cross a line) . Im feeling happy to post on this matter freely as i dont believe you have to be a plant guru to take care of yourself and those who are in the same room soaking up the vapours.


----------



## Drouthie

Yeah its not nice stuff but look at the msds of this:

http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91020.htm

*Ingestion:  May cause methemoglobinemia, cyanosis (bluish discoloration of skin due to deficient oxygenation of the blood), convulsions, and death. *

Household bleach. The poison is in the dose.


----------



## davidcmadrid

*Re: What's in AE excel/ easycarbo*

That may be true but i dont go sticking my hands in bleach and besides which we are working with doses well in excess of what the health industry considers safe in dissolved form if AE or seachem for that matter is even 99% water. The medical profession is happy to bleach the wards down but is not happy to be using this stuff even in the most controlled manner investing a lot of energy in getting rid of it. Notice that nurses report that outlines how even a tiny micro dose can cause problems ( the super lenghts they go to to avoid inhaling the stuff far beyond a cleaner in that same hospital is required to with bleach ) and nurses have won claims against the NHS proving that despite those controls they still developed asthma. Im not using the stuff because there is no MSDS , no information about concentration and the bottle is not labeled appropriately ( nor is Excel given how the aldehyde is classified in the UK ) and besides which there is a bucket of legislation that goes back to manafucture ( where / how ?? ) that is potentially not being complied with which is conjecture at this time. Copies of Excel is just that a copy and given the whole aquarium community has been in knots for years trying to figure out whats in it im not sure that this is possible to the extent that one can say it does what excel does under various conditions and behaves as excel does given it "seems"  that Seachem  have managed to tame the non polymer aldehyde by the addition of other compounds and have a very well developed quality assurance structure in addition.

I asked AE several question relating to quality assurance, for a copy of the msds  and  active ingredient ( legally obliged to say what it is ) at what point the stuff becomes toxic and the response recieved was " ITs been used for years without problems " and i was stonewalled on the rest. My understanding is that this is a new product so how its been used for years I dont know.

I should add that my interest is born out of the fact that I purchased the product and used it for a while before deciding to stop for a number of reasons to investigate what was in it. I was quite happy with AE and found them helpful on the phone and was somewhat surprised my questions were not answered as they addressed health and safety in addition to asking for information they are legally obliged to provide. ( MCDonalds are not allowed to keep their ingredients secret , its how they are mixed that is the secret ).


----------



## gratts

From what I understand Tom Barr helped/suggested the developement of AE's "Easycarbo" product, so hopefully him or Richard should be able to clarify things.


----------



## Drouthie

Assuming it only contains glutaraldehyde and water the effective dose for algicidal properties is 0.1 to 0.5 ppm.
Assuming the highest effective ppm dose (0.5) is used and the liquid is diluted 5ml per 100 000ml as stated on the bottle. This results in a dilution factor of 20000. So 20000 x 0.5 for the stock solution is 10 000 ppm.

10 000 ppm is equivilent to 10 ml in 1000 ml which is 1%. If the only contents are aqaueous glutaraldehyde and if the dosing is that high.

Nurses use about 2%, perhaps a little higher or lower if it has gone off.

Also the polymerised version has a lower ability to penatrate tissue and crosslink with proteins (an important consideration when using it to fix microscope slides). Personally I'm not worried about putting my hand in the tank  but I wouldn't get too close to the bottle. I don't beleive they would be able to sell it without a myriad of warnings if it was a real danger.

The amount for irritation of mucous membranes is 0.3 ppmv which I can't calculate because I don't know how big the hypothetical room is. I wouldn't sniff it to be on the safe side.

As far as risks go I'm not worried but I use more dangerous chemicals at work. I think the low level radioactivity will get me first, or I'll get hit by a car. Maybe I'd think differently if I had kids in the house.

I will of course stand corrected if (due to the fact I'm pretty tired) I've missed a factor of ten somewhere   .

EDIT sorry I forgot my source for the nurse percentage and irritation of mucous membranes
http://www.puricore.com/PDFs/Guideline_ ... scopes.pdf


----------



## davidcmadrid

Pages 6 and 7 of that report are the interesting ones, again the reduction in safe levels that the UK also adopted. AE stated their product is 20% stronger and it is not known that it is a polymer version that is being sold. I suppose long term the experience of other users will be interesting also just in terms of the tank.

Also if i follow your figures correctly these are for daily doses not the water change dose ,,, ever get the smell of the chemical in the room the day you do a water change ? That in my laymans view of things should if nothing else carry a warning to ensure proper ventilation when dosing it higher. Ever taken the advice to up the anti if tackling a bloom ??


----------



## Drouthie

If you can smell it that is bad

"  It has a detectable odor at 0.04 parts per million volume (ppmv) and is irritating to skin and mucous membranes 
at 0.3 ppmv. "

I agree proper ventilation is important.

I don't know if it smells myself as I don't have a very good sense of smell. I can't smell gas leaks so for something like that I don't stand a chance.

Also I calculated the daily dose 5x too high (sorry) so the stock would more likely be 0.2% or lower as I assumed a very high dose and that it is the only active ingredient.

I am still not overly worried, but maybe I am too trusting of their labels.


----------



## davidcmadrid

So what you are saying is , that it must be in high concentration  e.g in the shop bottle at which point it is very toxic  and  the bottle should be kept sealed and not smelled. As obvious as sniffing superglue is a bad idea , it says on the bottle sniffing glue is a bad idea on the bottle. The NHS is avoiding exposure to this for even minutes.  If that is the case then it stands to reason that the sole danger may only exist with the bottle itself , whilst dosing. My own sense of smell is not fantastic but yeah there was a pong on the day of dosing with water change in particular ( AE product i cant remember the excel as i was primarily using the AE one ) . My wife on the other hand due to her pregnancy can smell it a mile away ( though she can pretty much tell you whats on the frying pan next door right now ). 

I dont know how long it will take to get the results back on concentration. I have given all these documents to the scientist looking at concentrations also.


It seems  , generally speaking that Seachem and AE are keen not to say how much of the aldehyde is in the bottle ( if what James says is true there is a degree of obfuscation from Seachem ) but a company that wanted to make the stuff up can find out anyway from analysis ( i actually found the seachem patent application which outlined how they process it  but cant find it now ) and any diy tank keeper would be absolute loopers to try and brew this up at home ( could easily be found floating belly up in the fish tank ).


----------



## JohnC

I read somewhere else in a large thread about using these products to treat BBA that the reason they keep the ingredients secret was due to licensing laws on selling algaecide and pesticides. 

I wonder if any have actually been screened properly through the relevant health & trading standards bodies for sale over the counter in aquarium shops due to the toxic nature of the contents.

John


----------



## davidcmadrid

I dont believe so. Did you notice the pong when dosing easycarbo ? have you seen the health care industries take on gluteraldehyde ?


----------



## JohnC

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> I dont believe so. Did you notice the pong when dosing easycarbo ? have you seen the health care industries take on gluteraldehyde ?



My end of the bottle of easycarbo stinks. havnt seen the health care advice.


----------



## JamesC

hijac said:
			
		

> I read somewhere else in a large thread about using these products to treat BBA that the reason they keep the ingredients secret was due to licensing laws on selling algaecide and pesticides.
> 
> I wonder if any have actually been screened properly through the relevant health & trading standards bodies for sale over the counter in aquarium shops due to the toxic nature of the contents.
> 
> John



I would think the reason Seachem keep it secret is to stop it from being copied.

They keep quiet about the algaecide properties to keep the EPA from being involved. As Excel is being used as an aquarium fertiliser the EPA couldn't care less about it, but if they marketed it as an algaecide and where there was a possibility that the water it was added to would make it's way into the water systems then they would be very interested. This would then mean that Excel would have to be approved amongst many other things and would be a major headache for Seachem.

James


----------



## davidcmadrid

Seachem are very keen to avoid saying it kills algae because then its a pesticide and subject to much more stringent federal health and safety  laws in the US and Europe.


----------



## davidcmadrid

hijac said:
			
		

> davidcmadrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe so. Did you notice the pong when dosing easycarbo ? have you seen the health care industries take on gluteraldehyde ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My end of the bottle of easycarbo stinks. havnt seen the health care advice.
Click to expand...


The smell about my home but for sure in the tank room is quite strong when i dosed it water change dose. This is what the medical profession thinks of the active ingredient.
http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf ... 001362.pdf Nurses have won claims agains the NHS having developed problems using it too so dont spend too much time sniffing the bottle. Firstly i may be drawing the erroneous conclusion that Seachems product is somehow different but in any case health and safety issues are being skirted and in some cases , perhaps through ignorance,  being ignored by vendors. If liquid carbon is a must then the Excel is the product to use. I am not a plant guru and perhaps there are thousands of happy clients using the DIY excel but I have based on the research  I have done ( sources NHS / MSDS  and professional chemists ) reached from a laymans perspective the conclusions outlined above.


----------



## JohnC

Can you repost that link again. It doesnt seem to work for me.

You have me worried now since this bottle sits 2 feet from my bed and I dose both tanks in my bedroom which is also my home office.

John


----------



## davidcmadrid

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf ... 001362.pdf

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/78505/001362.pdf

There are some comments earlier in this thread relating to how its ok in lower concentrations and what concentrations are and are not problematic.


----------



## TBRO

Hmm quite worrying to think that bottle under my tank is potentially dangerous. Is gluteraldehyde carcinogenic or is the main problem respiratory tract irritation? 

Tom


----------



## davidcmadrid

The MSDS covers a lot of stuff , i get the impression they err on the side of caution whats of note though is that the medical procedures are different in the case of say ingestion of bleach to this with the emphasis being on trying to limit exposure by purposefully not inducing vomiting over say bleach. The Royal College of nurses report shows potential  problems if inhaled at .2 ppm for a period of 15 minutes so reduced the MEl , or Maximum exposure level to .05 ( page 7/16 of the report above ). The primary thing they seem to worry about is respitory problems but there are all kinds of secondary concerns for them to include organ failure.  

I firmly believe that there is a moral and legal requirement for the producers of these products to be clear about what is being used and what the concentrations are. Furthermore I believe that there is also a moral and legal obligation to correctly label the bottles to outline some of the safety procedures that should be employed when using it. Even things like ventilation.


----------



## JohnC

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that there is a moral and legal requirement for the producers of these products to be clear about what is being used and what the concentrations are. Furthermore I believe that there is also a moral and legal obligation to correctly label the bottles to outline some of the safety procedures that should be employed when using it. Even things like ventilation.



well said.

The grand total of the warning on the back of Easycarbo is -

Caution:
Do not overdose. For use in aquariums only. 
Keep out of the reach of children.

John


----------



## davidcmadrid

Pretty much the same for them all.


----------



## plantbrain

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> I have stopped using AEs carbon product totally and sent a sample of it to the Spanish State lab via my wifes sister who works there for a breakdown. The Excel product whilst even as above has dubious contents if the holes in the cheese lined up ( really do keep out of reach of children ! ) its from a company i would assume with a broad experience and resources to get the product to work and with broad quality control measures given the sensitve nature of the product.



Why hold them to a higher standard than say Seachem or Easy Carb?
They have the same types of labeling and warning.

I know what is in all 3 products specifically and have the equipment test methods to get that information. It's not different and the toxicity and concentration are the same for 2 of them. One is more concentrated. If you want to buy Seachem, go for it, but this and the other are quite similar. I've used it (same thing AE uses) for years now and have long suggested Seachem Excel to folks. 

Testing chemicals cost $ and takes time and you need to be sure. If you want to spend a lot of $ to test and time, nothing is stopping you, perhaps your sister will do it for free. Testing for unknown organics using HPLC columns ain't easy. Sample shipping, preservation and other issues also play some role. Been there, done this. PITA.
I have strong doubts they have that much idle time at the lab to just play around for free. I dunno, maybe she does.  

Seems easier for everyone just to go to SeaChem and not hassle with it, either that or use CO2 gas since there's this attitude of paranoia going about "chemicals".

CO2 is pretty mellow and you breath it all day long 8) 

If you want to wig out on labeling of ingredients, there are much larger fish to fry here.
Fragrances are not listed typically and folks apply these directly on skin, their body etc. Some have been found to endocrine disrupters.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the risk............is low with Excel, Easy Carb or AE's product. You do not leave it out with the bottle open, you do not sniff it, drink it, get it in your eyes, you add it to the tank at a low concentration and then it dilutes even further and is metabolized by plants and bacteria, not vaporized into your lungs directly.

Use common sense and follow the directions.



> I have not had a response from AE to  a request for a copy of the MSDS , nor details of potential toxicity to both humans and fauna alike in sufficent ( or what dose ). Initial investigations via the UK HSE and a number of other bodies suggest there is no MSDS available but in that sense its early days. Im not interested in the blurb on protecting trade secrets since it seems to me you would want to be nuts to try to make this stuff at home .. I wont be going back to using it for a number of reasons which i dont feel it appropriate to discuss just yet but i am in contact with more experienced members here than me and the local aquariast group.
> 
> At this stage , suffice to say " Go with the Excel if your using liquid carbon , no price difference and the muscle of a big lab behind the product ".


 
There's no need for the MSDS from AE, there's already one.
The same MSDS applies.
The same toxicity applies.

See above referenced post from Aaron.

Regards,
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> The MSDS covers a lot of stuff , i get the impression they err on the side of caution whats of note though is that the medical procedures are different in the case of say ingestion of bleach to this with the emphasis being on trying to limit exposure by purposefully not inducing vomiting over say bleach. The Royal College of nurses report shows potential  problems if inhaled at .2 ppm for a period of 15 minutes so reduced the MEl , or Maximum exposure level to .05 ( page 7/16 of the report above ). The primary thing they seem to worry about is respitory problems but there are all kinds of secondary concerns for them to include organ failure.
> 
> I firmly believe that there is a moral and legal requirement for the producers of these products to be clear about what is being used and what the concentrations are. Furthermore I believe that there is also a moral and legal obligation to correctly label the bottles to outline some of the safety procedures that should be employed when using it. Even things like ventilation.



Medical field workers are exposed to repeated and often longer term concentrations than aquarist, they also are exposed to vapour much more so and higher concentrations, rather than adding it to water rather quickly from a small bottle at low concentration.

For these reasons, the risk is much higher for them than aquarists.

This is not an issue between Seachem Easy Carb and AE, it's an issue of your perception of risk.
If you think the risk is high, them use CO2 or go non CO2.
Folks have killed more fish using CO2 however than any single thing they have added to a planted tank.

So if livestock concerns are the larger issue, then perhaps non CO2 is your method.
If "chemicals" are the larger risk, then perhaps CO2 gas is better for you.

Risk assessment is done for many things, nothing is risk free. Most things are highly toxic in the right dose, even salt, CO2, caffeine, Beer etc are quite deadly. 

The question is at what dose do these things become dangerous?
Not with these products if you follow directions, the beer is likely more risk to life and limb 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## JohnC

plantbrain said:
			
		

> Not with these products if you follow directions, the beer is likely more risk to life and limb



I'm holding a bottle of beer in one hand and a bottle of easy carbo in the other.

Living on the edge.  8)

edit - obviously put them down to type.


----------



## Drouthie

plantbrain said:
			
		

> Essentially what I'm saying is that the risk............is low with Excel, Easy Carb or AE's product. You do not leave it out with the bottle open, you do not sniff it, drink it, get it in your eyes, you add it to the tank at a low concentration and then it dilutes even further and is metabolized by plants and bacteria, not vaporized into your lungs directly.
> 
> Use common sense and follow the directions.




I completely agree, everything has risks and I find that msds are usually worst case senarios of the 100% chemical. There are many things you come into contact everyday that are just as/ more dangerous. Oh and for the record (from a couple of posts up) no it isn't a mutagen so most probably not carcinogenic. I read that in a msds and something on rat studies where they feed them 1000ppm in their water and see the long term health effects (nothing).


----------



## davidcmadrid

plantbrain said:
			
		

> The question is at what dose do these things become dangerous?



Inhaled  ( as i assume this was the manner of study since the near scuba kit they are mandated to wear doesnt allow skin absorbtion ) at .02 parts per million for 15 minutes or more  according to people more qualified than us if i read the Royal College of nurses assessment correctly ?  They  were unable to assertain what level was actually safe not only in concentration but also addressed the lenght of time of exposure. Take a read of it , its quite explicit and not a matter of perception. There was a time where asbestos was considered safe too , just because "people had been using it for a long time". 

The notion that im wigging out is ,, ermm nice but i just happened to start asking a few questions about this product got nowhere because of the secret that you say is not a secret and dug a bit deeper. 


Why did I select AE product because its the strongest of the 3 on the market in terms of concentration and several questions surrounding the product many of straight forward were ignored.  I also feel that its likely that a major company will  have developed quality control tests both during and post production to ensure there is just the right amount in the concentrated form . Incidentally I am not paranoid for the fish but for the kids , wife and myself. Took the decision that its not what I want to be using  maybe others will to ( would probably have passed it up but for the RCN report ) . This thread has been quite useful i feel as from what  I can gather it collates data from several verifiable sources and looks beyond the how do i make this stuff at home which was the extent to which many people have explored it, ill wig away   . I understand that the MSDS can be somewhat generic but when i asked for one , one specific to the registered manufacturer wasnt available as per the law in the UK and Europe for AES product _which is not the same in makeup as excel. _ so ..



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> do not leave it out with the bottle open  do not sniff it


.. as a safety precaution , thats the first time I have seen an aquariast say that so something has been achieved from this already. 

The RCN reports that MELS for the substance should be at no more than .02 ppm either short term ( 15 minutes )  or cumulative  long term ( 8 hours for them is considered long term ) and according to the American conference of Government Industrial Hygienists  Humans detect the odour of the aldehyde above 4 ppm or 80  times the RCN limit although there is conflicting data with some data sources saying that its detectable at 4 parts per billion.  Particularily when strongly dosing the product i  recall a strong smell of the product in the room for 5 or 6 hours straight i,e  after a water change and in the corridor into the fish room about 6 meters from the tank. That was with AEs product ( the higher concentrate one ) , I cant recall one way or the other with Seachems as i barely used it.

In any case as i pointed out , theres just enough anecdotal evidence to me personally not to use it and I guess thats what it comes down to.


Generally speaking as I said above that users of the product should be made more aware of the risks through more comprehensive labelling and advice ( even simple stuff like wash you hands if contaminated , open window if dosing high levels, do not sniff, do not leave bottle open. Seachem point out get this in your eye and your in trouble to be fair that is the most comprehensive labelling there is of the 3  )  etc , im not suggesting that it be sent to the local nuclear waste dump and buried lest its owners drop dead . People more qualified than ourselves in human toxicology will and should make determination beyond that .  Instead   its  "  its been used for years ".. there was a time doctors reccomended smoking. 

Here is what the American Center for Disease control says about handling the product:

" Furthermore, it is important to note that individuals can protect themselves from exposure to glutaraldehyde by following specific guidelines outlined by the Center for Disease Control, which includes the use of local exhaust ventilation, keeping glutaraldehyde baths under a fume hood where possible, using the minimum amount of glutaraldehyde to perform the required  procedure, avoiding skin contact by using gloves and aprons made of nitrile or butyl rubber, washing gloved hands after handling glutaraldehyde, wearing goggles and face shields when handling glutaraldehyde, and sealing or covering all containers holding glutaraldehyde solutions "

Photographers also won claims as Gluteraldehyde was an element in low concentration of developer fluid at one point.


There are other and potentially worse risks out there of course I agree but its besides the point at the minute.


----------



## Brenmuk

Lots of really useful info here davidcmadrid - good digging!


----------



## GreenNeedle

I agree this is quite a fascinating thread.  However I have a seperate question on home brew aldehydes.

What is the take on Formalin / Formaldehyde?  I make my own from a bottle of 40% Formaldeyde and DI water.

1 part of 40% Formaldehyde and 12 parts water.

What is the assessment of risk on this?  And if equally bad how was it I was allowed to buy the bottle of 40% Formaldehyde over the counter so to speak?

On the subject of Excel being algaecide, Seachem have always stated that it was never intended as an algaecide nor was it something that was expected.  More of a side effect that was discovered later on.  therefore this is why they say they don't put that in their marketing.  It is the user themselves that have spread this message.

AC


----------



## davidcmadrid

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> What is the take on Formalin / Formaldehyde?  I make my own from a bottle of 40% Formaldeyde and DI water.
> 
> 1 part of 40% Formaldehyde and 12 parts water.
> 
> What is the assessment of risk on this?  And if equally bad how was it I was allowed to buy the bottle of 40% Formaldehyde over the counter so to speak?



http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/FO/formaldehyde.html

Kinda went eek when i read the toxicology on it. Lachrymator i think means something to do with chemical weapon or tear gas depending on the page you look at online.


----------



## JamesC

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> What is the take on Formalin / Formaldehyde?  I make my own from a bottle of 40% Formaldeyde and DI water.
> 
> 1 part of 40% Formaldehyde and 12 parts water.
> 
> What is the assessment of risk on this?  And if equally bad how was it I was allowed to buy the bottle of 40% Formaldehyde over the counter so to speak?


Terrible stuff. What on earth do you want it for? Are you embalming bodies?  



			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> On the subject of Excel being algaecide, Seachem have always stated that it was never intended as an algaecide nor was it something that was expected.  More of a side effect that was discovered later on.  therefore this is why they say they don't put that in their marketing.  It is the user themselves that have spread this message.


Seachem have always known that it acts as an algaecide. They just don't say it is an algaecide otherwise they would have the EPA on their case. It's much easier to sell if it's just an aquarium fertiliser.

James


----------



## JamesC

Being doing some more investigating as I like to do and stumbled across this:


> Commercially, glutaraldehyde is typically available in 2%, 25% and 50% solutions in water, with other dilutions occasionally seen and used. In acidic media, which is typically how glutaraldehyde is supplied to users, glutaraldehyde, being a highly reactive aldehyde, exists as a mixture of hydrated and nonhydrated forms. Therefore, monomer, open-chain mono-hydrates and di-hydrates, a cyclic hemiacetal and an acetal polymeric form all exist in a complex equilibrium. In acidic conditions, the cyclic hemiacetal and the acetal polymers of varying chain length are the preferred form and predominant.


Now if you remember from before I mentioned that Seachem had created a generic name for their isomer called polycycloglutaracetal. Well looking at the quote from above you may recognise some of the parts for the name. So glutaraldehyde in solution actually exists as many different compounds including acetal polymers (poly.........acetal), cyclic hemiacetal (poly-cyclo.......acetal) and not forgetting glutaraldehyde (poly-cyclo-glutar-acetal). Put it all together and what do you get?? So it would appear that possibly Excel is just a solution of glutaraldehyde after all with a made up name to try and confuse people.

If anybody wants to waste a bit of Excel and measure the pH for me it would be appreciated. I have a betting it will be acidic, possibly around 5.5.

James


----------



## Sye Davies

5


----------



## JamesC

Sye Davies said:
			
		

> 5


Thank you. As I suspected it is quite acidic. I would guess the art of storing it successfully is in the buffer used to keep it at the correct pH.

James


----------



## GreenNeedle

JamesC said:
			
		

> Terrible stuff. What on earth do you want it for? Are you embalming bodies?



I used it for the parasite/bacterial/fungal problems I had with the Corys.  Frank off Planet Catfish suggested it.  He uses it weekly in his tanks.  Apparently it turns the dead cells into something else like in embalming and removes the dead cell food source from the equation so that the parasites have nothing to feed off.  Used to cure Ich etc.  Also kills the fungus, bacteria and it's spores.

Didn't kill anything fish or shrimp wise but it does smell.  Didn't smell it in the water but when the bottle is open you can smell it.

I bought a 500ml bottle off ebay direct from the manufacturer/supplier.  Clearly labelled as to what it was, clear toxicity statements on the advert and the bottle.  They've been selling it for years.  Was cheap too

AC


----------



## plantbrain

hijac said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with these products if you follow directions, the beer is likely more risk to life and limb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm holding a bottle of beer in one hand and a bottle of easy carbo in the other.
> 
> Living on the edge.  8)
> 
> edit - obviously put them down to type.
Click to expand...


My client once drank some Excel he had in a glass similar to the water.
Said it burned like hell.
Sounds like high proof Scotch to me

He's still quite alive.
I've only done something similar with Brine shrimp.  

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## JamesM

plantbrain said:
			
		

> hijac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with these products if you follow directions, the beer is likely more risk to life and limb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm holding a bottle of beer in one hand and a bottle of easy carbo in the other.
> 
> Living on the edge.  8)
> 
> edit - obviously put them down to type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My client once drank some Excel he had in a glass similar to the water.
> Said it burned like hell.
> Sounds like high proof Scotch to me
> 
> He's still quite alive.
> I've only done something similar with Brine shrimp.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr
Click to expand...


----------



## plantbrain

> Why did I select AE product because its the strongest of the 3 on the market in terms of concentration and several questions surrounding the product many of straight forward were ignored.



No, EasyCarbo is ....compared to say Seachem Excel

http://www.easylife.nl/english/index.html?id=43

The dosage is much less and the results are the same, now ask yourself why?
Because the product is more concentrated.

I do not know what concentration AE's is or is not, but I doubt it's that much different than Seachem. Might be closer to Easycarbo, not sure. However, of the 2 name brands, Easy Carbo is certainly more concentrated.
You can test that while you are at it  :idea: 

Why ask others to do the work for you? This is something you need to prove to yourself.
You cannot trust the government, the industry etc, you said so yourself with cig's and cancer etc........
You cannot add much more as far as ppm's to the aquarium without killing things.
So they all have the same stuff, which has a known toxicity dose response curve for  a wide range of aquatic critters.
This means they ultimately all have a similar dose, regardless of what the product starting ppm's are.

If I add 1ml of 100ppm NO3, or 5 ml of 20ppm, to a 10 liter tank, I get the same concentration.
Same thing here.

My question is why are you after the little guy here vs Seachem or Easylife?
It's easier to pick on them than going after the bigger companies?

I'm not questioning the fact that it's a dangerous chemical, it is, and maybe it's not safe under the guidelines for air quality exposure for humans. No one has tested that :idea: 



> I also feel that its likely that a major company will  have developed quality control tests both during and post production to ensure there is just the right amount in the concentrated form .



To use the very same argument you used on me:
Like Westinghouse did with PCB's? Or DDT?  
Cig's and cancer? 
You try and use this same argument against me, then you leave your self open like this?  

Just because it's marketed, does not mean it's safe, things have become better over the years, but this is not food, herbicides, asbestos, DDT, or drugs, it's fish hobby stuff. Not much demand for such regulation or large risk posed to the public for most things. Big difference when comparing and making analogies. 

Name one product that poses a large risk to aquarist that's been banned ?
I cannot think of any off the top of my head. AE could easily test and measure the chemical and offer the same concentration and dose to aquarists.
That's also very likely, more likely than air qualify risk assessments done on the vapours' effect on humans from use of these products :idea: .



> one specific to the registered manufacturer wasnt available as per the law in the UK and Europe for AES product _which is not the same in makeup as excel. _ so ..



How do you know it's not the same?
You'd have to same beef with Easy carb and with Seachem Excel, yet you seem unwilling to to take them on, threaten them, but are okay with a little small company?
Do entertain me.

They all have the same stuff in them, perhaps at different concentrations, but the same none the less.
Maybe the air levels are unsafe, would you go after the larger companies then? Or just AE?

We do not know.
I have tested 2 of the products for concentrations.
Have you?



> In any case as i pointed out , theres just enough anecdotal evidence to me personally not to use it and I guess thats what it comes down to.



Yes, I'd suggest you not use *any* of the 3 products since it's a risk you are not willing to accept.
The air quality issue has not been tested or resolved within the health industry for many cases.
I highly doubt anyone has done so in the aquarium hobby :idea: 

You honestly think they have?
Ask and see for yourself. 



> " Furthermore, it is important to note that individuals can protect themselves from exposure to glutaraldehyde by following specific guidelines outlined by the Center for Disease Control, which includes the use of local exhaust ventilation, keeping glutaraldehyde baths under a fume hood where possible, using the minimum amount of glutaraldehyde to perform the required  procedure, avoiding skin contact by using gloves and aprons made of nitrile or butyl rubber, washing gloved hands after handling glutaraldehyde, wearing goggles and face shields when handling glutaraldehyde, and sealing or covering all containers holding glutaraldehyde solutions "



And this is why I tell folks not to DIY this stuff.
I have such protocols in place, few if any hobbyist do.
It can cause permanent eye damage. 
You are missing some of the biological factor however, plants and bacteria break it down.
Rather fast at that. 

At lower levels of concentrations, the volatility is lower(eg in your aquarium), so there's going to be less evolution in the vapour form, whether or not you can smell it, does not imply that there's a high level etc, good ventilation is wise anyway if you use it daily etc.  You'd need to measure the vapours from a typical aquarium in a typical room's air to judge whether there's a health risk.
My bet is that there is some.

I don't use it frequently however, and add it before I leave for work etc. By the time I get back(9 1/2 hours later), 95-100% is gone(I took samples, frozen them to see, then tested).

This does not measure what is in the air where I am at in the home however.
Since you bring this up and all, do you think Seachem, Easy Carbo have bothered to do such human health risk assessments and do you think they have any medical human health doctors that are qualified to do such work?
You seem to think/suggest they do and should be trusted, while AE is not. I agree there's a lack of info on the human health aspects. Your sister will not be able to answer that, you need to measure the air concentrations at the homes of aquarist to get an idea there.

So you'd need a meter to measure the levels with typical use in a poorly ventilated room, at high concentrations, perhaps with several tanks etc. Then see what the ppm standards are and time of exposure/dose for humans based on the best data available for risk.

Maybe there's something to it.
Are you going to do that and take on Seachem and Easylife or just pick on AE?
*If not, then everything you have said is sort of mute ain't it?*
If so, then we can look towards having these products removed potentially and NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

While we might not want that in some ways, it may be better in the long run, however, at this point, it's all still speculation. There's no evidence I'm aware of either way on the amount of evolution into the air of any of these 3 products and their adverse health risk on aquarist.

I do wonder why you pick on AE, yet not the others, since the real risk is the ppm's in the air and the human effects and risk. All 3 companies have the same active ingredient after all and the dose to the aquariums will be similar, thus the evolution of vapour into the air where the aquarist live.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

The other thing, why not just side step it and use CO2 gas?
That's what I do.  

You can add CO2 to beer too!
Cannot do that for with Excel!

regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## davidcmadrid

plantbrain said:
			
		

> The other thing, why not just side step it and use CO2 gas?
> That's what I do.
> 
> You can add CO2 to beer too!
> Cannot do that for with Excel!
> 
> regards,
> Tom Barr



Tom,

I am not using any product ( any more  but tried  two of them )  but as i said above I would tend to trust a major firm making this stuff to a precise solution more than an "online aquarium  shop " and that is a sentiment many people expressed to me in private in addition.  I would imagine that Excels laboratory and quality control capacity at a minimum is better, that is conjecture however but i dont think a reach . . I did ask AE , given it is not a chemicals company what its quality control was in addition to other items to which they were legally obliged to respond and didnt. Were the product manufactured by a qualified chemist im sure my questions would be answered , im not sure if your from the US or UK , i think its the US but the law is a little less lax here. Also AEs product by design is the strongest of the three. That is why i focus on AE in particular when talking about a manufacturer but most of my posts relate to the chemical itself. I had a really good experience shopping with them and everything else was fine , you will note I actually complimented the service in their section and was a little bit dissapointed that the questions were not answered. 

For two  aquariums i just finished rigging up 5kg bottles to the last one today and the bits for a third one are on the way.


----------



## JamesM

In what way are AE legal obliged to answer any questions? Also, what makes you think AE are making this stuff up in a bath tub? They could very well have a different company making and bottling it for them.


----------



## davidcmadrid

JamesM said:
			
		

> In what way are AE legal obliged to answer any questions? Also, what makes you think AE are making this stuff up in a bath tub? They could very well have a different company making and bottling it for them.



Uk and European law states that if a chemical is a known toxin / hazard  then its provider must make available an MSDS outlining the contents you can get the details of anything e.g washing up liquid , washing powder etc. This is so if there is a medical emergency with the product e.g kid drinks it the doctors know what to do... inducing vomiting after drinking Gluteraldyde is a no no , where as that is one common way of immediately stopping the toxin being further absorbed such as with bleach. The reason the MSDS should be available for the product is because it is by the name of the product as per the bottle that the doctor can identify what it is that is for example ingested. 

 If it was somebody else making it  they could have just said so or something. In any case its not about AE only but Seachem do have one published, would you remember in A and E to say i think its the same as a product called Excel treat for that one.


----------



## davidcmadrid

plantbrain said:
			
		

> Why did I select AE product because its the strongest of the 3 on the market in terms of concentration and several questions surrounding the product many of straight forward were ignored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, EasyCarbo is ....compared to say Seachem Excel
Click to expand...


AEtold me theres was when i bought it. 





			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> I do not know what concentration AE's is or is not, but I doubt it's that much different than Seachem. Might be closer to Easycarbo, not sure. However, of the 2 name brands, Easy Carbo is certainly more concentrated.
> You can test that while you are at it  :idea:
> 
> Why ask others to do the work for you? This is something you need to prove to yourself.
> You cannot trust the government, the industry etc, you said so yourself with cig's and cancer etc........
> You cannot add much more as far as ppm's to the aquarium without killing things.



Funny in tiny doses it kills plants and fish, at the same or lower air dose people get asthma and according to its msds other things are possible. Nurses won claims for other things too...  and your mate drinks it and lives to tell the tale anyhow..  You also mentioned in an earlier post you know the exact contents and somebody just buzzed me to tell me why.I have taken no action beyond posting what i have found out here.





			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> My question is why are you after the little guy here vs Seachem or Easylife?
> It's easier to pick on them than going after the bigger companies?


This isnt anything to do with AE at the end of the day , its to do with the product all three companies sell.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> I'm not questioning the fact that it's a dangerous chemical, it is, and maybe it's not safe under the guidelines for air quality exposure for humans. No one has tested that


*Yes they have , the Royal College of nurses did its in the report above. *






			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Just because it's marketed, does not mean it's safe, things have become better over the years, but this is not food, herbicides, asbestos, DDT, or drugs, it's fish hobby stuff. Not much demand for such regulation or large risk posed to the public for most things. Big difference when comparing and making analogies.



You have just made my point , which is that people should consider whether Gluteraldehyde products are safe given the stack of evidence thats available. One of the scientists on the thread said if he had kids at home he would probably not have it in the house.




			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Name one product that poses a large risk to aquarist that's been banned ? Is it regulated properly I cannot think of any off the top of my head. AE could easily test and measure the chemical and offer the same concentration and dose to aquarists.



Is it regulated properly ,, you said that not me . My purpose is to have people consider the information presented in the thread and make up their own mind about whether to use the product , precautions etc. I asked AE if they do QC and was ignored. It seams also that JAmes can extrapulate that Seachem are telling porkies also about the product, so maybe they too should get an " x " . That has just occurred to me , i was assuming incorrectly you might say that a multinational has a lab to do these tests in terms of the concentration.








			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> How do you know it's not the same?
> You'd have to same beef with Easy carb and with Seachem Excel, yet you seem unwilling to to take them on, threaten them, but are okay with a little small company?
> Do entertain me.
> 
> They all have the same stuff in them, perhaps at different concentrations, but the same none the less.



It doesnt matter whether its the same or not , the fact is the law says they must have one and they dont for emergency purposes . I have not threatened anybody incidentally , perhaps some people feel threatened ,, you come across rather defensive. I also sent a link of this thread to Seachem and easylife.






			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Maybe the air levels are unsafe



Yes maybe they are , again that is my point made for me and what people should consider with all products , e.g the fella who posted that his tank sits on his home office desk.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> We do not know.
> I have tested 2 of the products for concentrations.
> Have you?



Above you just said you didnt know what they were , but i doubt  you going to tell me theres bugger all gluteralaldehyde in a product that if double dosed kills fish and sometimes kills them anyway. Has known algae killing properties at 5ppm, so by extrapolation based on dosing etc it can be done.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> In any case as i pointed out , theres just enough anecdotal evidence to me personally not to use it and I guess thats what it comes down to.





			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Yes, I'd suggest you not use *any* of the 3 products since it's a risk you are not willing to accept.



If thats not abundantly clear I am not using any of them  and have not done since I read the RCN report then im not using any of them with CO2 only.



> The air quality issue has not been tested or resolved within the health industry for many cases.
> I highly doubt anyone has done so in the aquarium hobby
> 
> You honestly think they have?
> Ask and see for yourself.



I read the RCN report as saying they were unable to determine if below .2 ppm  was actually safe and there strong reccomendation the industry was to eliminate Gluteraldehyde from their process which was resisted by the health industry for a long time because of cost . It is felt that the only place now using GA for sterilization is in the third world. 



> At lower levels of concentrations, the volatility is lower(eg in your aquarium), so there's going to be less evolution in the vapour form, whether or not you can smell it, does not imply that there's a high level etc



This is the subject of debate it appears with most studies suggesting 4ppm being the threshold for smelling it whereas one suggest 4 ppb  that i found so the act of smelling it in itself may be an indication of airborne concentration . The fact that I can smell it in the next room .. etc.. With one of the manufactures products it was not the case that it was barely detectable either it was strong.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Good ventilation is wise anyway if you use it daily etc.



Great were making progress Tom. You said last night dont smell it , dont leave the bottle open and now you say good ventilation is wise. People will surely listen to you as i gather you are highly respected ( I am a paying member on your site so i have the time ), one of the things i said some post ago was to at least include some form of documentation with it. 


> You'd need to measure the vapours from a typical aquarium in a typical room's air to judge whether there's a health risk. My bet is that there is some.



Thanks , thats what i have been driving at that there may be a health risk. 



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> I don't use it frequently however, and add it before I leave for work etc. By the time I get back(9 1/2 hours later), 95-100% is gone(I took samples, frozen them to see, then tested).
> Since you bring this up and all, do you think Seachem, Easy Carbo have bothered to do such human health risk assessments and do you think they have any medical human health doctors that are qualified to do such work?



Potentially not , which is why the discussion is valid.



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> You seem to think/suggest they do and should be trusted, while AE is not. I agree there's a lack of info on the human health aspects. Your sister will not be able to answer that, you need to measure the air concentrations at the homes of aquarist to get an idea there.



You are potentially right there , this is an assumption that I am making , it is not a scientific conclusion but it doesnt alter the core point. I wanted only to know the actual concentration of the GA.

Your under the illusion that I am on some form of witch hunt for AE, to be fair to that I have focussed on that one because the sales person told me their product was 20% stronger than the other ones and it still could be the case that this means the bottle has a higher ppm relatively speaking. That is a laymans error, potentially. That being said I admit becoming a little biased when they dont Know / comply with the legal requirements to sell the product and I would suspect dont have the means to test it ( i did ask but didnt get an answer at which point i got a little more " vocal "  ). As you say / know  the contents are not a secret so why not just be straight , only a qualified chemist if stone cold sober would mix up this brew. The ability to smell the product is a function of airborne concentration and excel / Easycarbo users are reporting that they cant not smell anything with excel or easycarbo.




			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> So you'd need a meter to measure the levels with typical use in a poorly ventilated room, at high concentrations, perhaps with several tanks etc. Then see what the ppm standards are and time of exposure/dose for humans based on the best data available for risk.



There is some debate in the industry but all but one source says you cant smell it unless its at an airborn concentration of 4ppm. Therefore i extrapulated given the RCN report that in fact the airborn level is potentially dangerous ( open a window and its not  perhaps , simple precautions ). The point of debate only is at what concentration it gets airborn before breakdown due to the tanks heat. 



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Maybe there's something to it.
> Are you going to do that and take on Seachem and Easylife or just pick on AE?
> *If not, then everything you have said is sort of mute ain't it?*




Is it ? It seems to have started a debate , one that might spread in the fish world a little bit . At a minimum as more people figure out whats in the goup they wont try to DIY it and some with asmathics in the family or other respatory problems might avoid it. People with kids may also decide to not use it, people might start to open windows etc. 




			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> If so, then we can look towards having these products removed potentially and NO LONGER AVAILABLE.


[/quote] 
Im sure builders complained when asbestos was taken of the market too . There is a world of study done on this chemical by the medical industry because a LOT of people got sick. People developing photographs where the PPM was MUCH lower got sick. One study I found talked about rats being exposed to it and developing abnormalties  , they were put down after the experiment so the longer term effects have not been studied so well,,, but again if you just open a window and leave the room for a while etc. Perhaps that is simplistic.  Somehow i dont think that it  will happen though  and its not the point, you will see that i dicussed labelling and some form of awareness of the inherant danger. Not many people lokc themselves in a room with evaporating glue , common sense can prevail. 

Your definition of common sense has expanded  it seems with the definition of  the simple precautions expanding :

Dont smell it.
Dont leave the bottle open.
It is a good idea to leave a window open.


And yup really do keep out of reach of the kids ..i mean if your mate can accidently drink it ...  

It seems to me that the fish world is well connected online , word of the precautions would get about if somebody like yourself were to post them. That being said I imagine that product is being sold to new aquariasts and to people with non planted tanks to kill algae also so some form of decent labelling is appropriate its a shame in a way that it would take a legal exercise by the state to force that to happen. 

It is something that is worth talking about at least instead of , on yer bike mate its been used for years.



David


----------



## JamesC

JamesM said:
			
		

> what makes you think AE are making this stuff up in a bath tub? They could very well have a different company making and bottling it for them.


viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5602#p61977



The UK has it's own set of rules called CHIP. This makes interesting reading - http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg350.pdf. As the liquid carbon is a preparation containing a dangerous substance then there are requirements that need to be met in regard to labelling and handling. There are exceptions to the rule, ie if it's for the cosmetic industry. I'm not sure if this also includes the pet industry as well.

With regard to the 3 main products been talked about here, I'm now fairly certain that they all use the same active ingredient of glutaraldehyde. Where there may be a slight difference is in preparation with different buffers, stabilisers etc being used.

With what I now know I will think twice about using the stuff. If I did use it, I wouldn't use it with young family members around. I would also make sure the room was well ventilated. Extreme? maybe but looking at the very low levels that have caused health concerns in the NHS I would treat these products with great care.

Once in the tank it does react so becoming safe. If memory serves me correctly it takes about 6 hours for half of it to react.

As with all chemicals some people are much more susceptable than others.  If you do use it then use a bit of common and keep the lid on when not in use and don't bung your nose in the bottle to see what it smells like.

Happily for me I've never really used the stuff as I like my CO2.

James


----------



## davidcmadrid

JamesC said:
			
		

> The UK has it's own set of rules called CHIP. This makes interesting reading - http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg350.pdf. As the liquid carbon is a preparation containing a dangerous substance then there are requirements that need to be met in regard to labelling and handling. There are exceptions to the rule, ie if it's for the cosmetic industry. I'm not sure if this also includes the pet industry as well.



Its being sold ( marketed )  either as a fertilizer or as a Herbicide depending on which product you look at so from the research i did , it falls under the legislation. I just confirmed what is common sense really as i notice most other dangerous things are labelled.


Here is a link to Presented by the Office of Environmental Health and Safety referring to Cidex which is 2.4% concentrate. Brief document outlining there are effects to long term exposure : http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Lrj ... clnk&gl=us


Its just occurred to me That the best way to deal with this is to put all of this in one document and send it to the 3 companies , its clear in the EU at least that things have to be tightened up in order to meet the legal requirements. Tom what would you suggest in terms of labelling?


----------



## lljdma06

hijac said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with these products if you follow directions, the beer is likely more risk to life and limb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm holding a bottle of beer in one hand and a bottle of easy carbo in the other.
> 
> Living on the edge.  8)
> 
> edit - obviously put them down to type.
Click to expand...


   

But why sacrifice the _beer_?  That is what straws were invented for my friend.   

This is a _fascinating_ thread.   I don't inject CO2 or use liquid products, so this really doesn't effect me, but it is interesting to read both sides.  Thanks.


----------



## GreenNeedle

I am confused!!!!

Here is the Formaldehyde label.  Is the MSDS on this label?  I don't know what one is so you can teach me here so I know what we are talking about. lol.





I was wondering if it is on the EasyCarbo label so here is the full label (apart from the rear which is chinese or Japanese.)










I was wondering about other things I DIY with.  I have some Cajeput Oil and some Pimenta Racemosa (bay leaf) oil which I use to copy Melafix and Pimafix albeit without an emulsifier in there.

Now these 'oils' clearly say on their bottles do not inhale, do not blah blah etc.  yet they are sold by the same person who bottles it and prints do not inhale as aromatherapy oils????  I guess what I am asking is how can something be used for aromatherapy if it says on the bottle it is not to be inhaled?

What I am getting at here is are the warnings there for HSE reasons whilst the authorities are quite aware that they are being used for these purposes.  Are the 2 labels above exempt because they are pet products?  Our law is very overcomplicated and whilst they slap regulations on a lot of things they always seem to make sure there are plenty of reasons for exclusions so that they don't hamper businesses.

I keep the Formaldehyde, EasyCarbo, Cajeput and Pim' Race' Oils, fertilisers, ph tests, pressurised CO2 all at ground level in my tank cabinet, which is in my lounge and I have a 3 and 4 year old.  They are always next to the tank but I think I am responsible enough to be able to handle the products after all if (I rarely use it)I add Excel I syringe the dose, put the lid on , empty the syringe into the tank, flush the syringe with the tank water and then job is done. 20 seconds total for the job, 3 or 4 seconds with the bottle lid open.  Same with the Formaldehyde.

At the end of the day we could take probably 50% of every product sold off the shelves to minimise risks and safeguard the population from their own foolishness/carelessness but I think it would be a poorer country for it.

AC


----------



## Aqua Essentials

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> Your under the illusion that I am on some form of witch hunt for AE, to be fair to that I have focussed on that one because the sales person told me their product was 20% stronger than the other ones and it still could be the case that this means the bottle has a higher ppm relatively speaking.



I'm not getting involved in this thread but I will set you straight.

You clearly misheard what we stated about Aqua Carbon. It's 20% stronger than Seachem Excel but is *not* stronger than Easycarbo. This is apparent by the dosage:

Aqua Carbon = 5ml per 50L

Easycarbo = 1ml per 50L

I now believe this forum should be locked as it will only escalate.


----------



## Themuleous

I think we all need to take a step back here, lots of potential accusations being banded about and that does no one any good.  If you dont like the product or are weary about health and safety, dont use it!  Simple as that aint it?

Sam


----------



## Steve Smith

Themuleous said:
			
		

> I think we all need to take a step back here, lots of potential accusations being banded about and that does no one any good.  If you dont like the product or are weary about health and safety, dont use it!  Simple as that aint it?
> 
> Sam



Agreed.  There have been a lot of points made and questions raised, but it's almost getting to be a wtich hunt.  I would say if any of you have any legitimate concerns, you should take it to the manufacturers of those products and ask them directly.

I don't think it's necessary to lock this thread (yet) but please consider your responses and be cautious.  We don't want any libelous comments being banded about willy nilly...


----------



## jonny_ftm

Hi,

I work in the medical stuff. After reading through this thread, I chose the safe part. I'll be giving away my 2 seachem excel bottles I just bought for my ongoing nano aquarium. Hopefully I never used them yet. I'll definately go gas CO2

This is my choice. I just wanted to thank people that are raising the concern about the safety of such mysteriously labeled products. By expierience, when managing such products, never minimize the potential impact on your health in long term use. Even more concern would be vital if you have young children playing around a volatile potentially toxic product.

Many medicines go into deep stages of testing before marketting, yet they were revealed 10 years later to be unsafe. For a product starting on the unsafe side, your choice, after you read this thread, can't be more on purpose of accepting quiet evident potential risks.


----------



## davidcmadrid

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> I
> Now these 'oils' clearly say on their bottles do not inhale, do not blah blah etc.  yet they are sold by the same person who bottles it and prints do not inhale as aromatherapy oils????  I guess what I am asking is how can something be used for aromatherapy if it says on the bottle it is not to be inhaled?



You know what thats a good point and it is not a question I can answer.   That being said nobody ever won a case against the manufacturer of Aromatherapy products or the employer ( to my knowledge based on a quick google search ) because it was dangerous and nobody ever felt the need to perform exhaustive testing on what level of it may be dangerous or  not and conclude that the best thing to do is just use something thats 4 times more expensive and it probably doesnt appear on the CDC or HSES list. Again that is after a quick search. Beyond that there is no point to rehash what is covered above.

I do lock my chemicals in a shoulder high cabinet though and take care with prepared and un prepared solutions. 


Do you get a strong smell in the room when you dose easy carbo esp after a water change ( Another user of Easy Carbo has said no.)  ? What about Excel i used it once before stopping and cant remember one way or the other.


----------



## aaronnorth

interesting information being passed on here.
David, i have been using excel & easycarbo for about 1.5yrs now, and not once have i smelt it in the air, or even smelling the tank water, i do know what it smells like because when i first bought it i had a quick sniff (oops). Didnt do any harm to me anyway.

Personally i think this hass gone past knowing what liquid carbon is made up of to its deadly and we should use it with extreme caution.

I doubt it is that bad othrwise it would of been banned years ago, and people would of been complaining about it, 
I am not worried about it. We'll see what comes back from easylife, seachem and the lab before i declare myself as not using it anymore


----------



## GreenNeedle

When I've used Easycarbo as per Aaron.  I can smell it from the bottle but not the tank.

Compare that to the Cajeput or Pimenta oils and the room stinks for days!!!

AC


----------



## jonny_ftm

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> I doubt it is that bad othrwise it would of been banned years ago, and people would of been complaining about it...



Sadely, this is not true
The good example is drugs undergoing deep testing before human phases and commercial launch, yet they can be removed because of their unsafety years later. This is with well permanent monitored/followed for adverse effects products. You'll never get a follow up for seachem excel... costs too much and no one is interested in it

Another example is many food additives that are not allowed in children food because of known neurologic/endocrine effects. Yet, those same additives are allowed in tooth paste for children starting of 6 months, despite we all know that at that age, they just swallow all the recommended tooth paste up to 3 years old maybe. Why it is allowed? Because tooth paste doesn't fall under the "food and drug" products rules. Seems incredible, yet it is true

I don't want to relaunch the debate, but just to say, that for me, there are many real concerns on the long term safety of this product (long term means +10 years). In infants, safety is a bigger concern because of the developping organism and small body mass. Until the manufacturs of these products don't give more info on the real composition/concentration of their products, careful advice is warranted in my opinion.

But like with cigarette, every one do what he likes


----------



## Nelson

hi,
i,ve only used easycarbo,but what gets me is theres not even a warning on it not to inhale or wash your hands after use.
i deal with solvents at work and we get nitrile gloves,goggles and face mask.and 90% of the time i work outside.



> JamesC
> As with all chemicals some people are much more susceptable than others.  If you do use it then use a bit of common and keep the lid on when not in use and don't bung your nose in the bottle to see what it smells



glad this thread is on here so people can make a choice.i won't be using it anymore.
thanks guys for a great thread.


----------



## Mark Evans

nelson said:
			
		

> .i won't be using it anymore.



I'm shaking my head here...

A good thread?....in what way? because this stuff is seen as dangerous? so if it had a health warning on it, that would make it ok?....ermmm....paint stripper? meths?.....

it's common sense guys. i get it on my hands all the time...it does nothing!

blimey, and we all Bang pressurised fire extinguishers cylinders under our tanks....kept secure via TAPE!

it's things like this that will turn this country into a nanny state!


----------



## JamesM

Not to mention hanging lights over open top tanks!


----------



## Nelson

> by saintly
> 
> nelson wrote:
> .i won't be using it anymore.
> 
> I'm shaking my head here...
> 
> A good thread?....in what way? because this stuff is seen as dangerous? so if it had a health warning on it, that would make it ok?....ermmm....paint stripper? meths?.....


so people know what is in it and what it can do to you.QUITE SIMPLE REALLY.not that hard was it 
paint stripper? meths?.....try reading the warnings on them.YES THEY HAVE WARNINGS  


> JamesC
> As with all chemicals some people are much more susceptable than others. If you do use it then use a bit of common and keep the lid on when not in use and don't bung your nose in the bottle to see what it smells
> 
> 
> 
> it's common sense guys. i get it on my hands all the time...it does nothing!
Click to expand...

DID YOU READ IT (edited)


> blimey, and we all Bang pressurised fire extinguishers cylinders under our tanks....kept secure via TAPE!


i've had FE training when i was working in germany.they (FE'S)are designed to take some punishment.seen them THROWN around and still work,no explosions.not that i'm suggesting this.  .it the tape came off what would happen :? .co2 would stop coming out 


> it's things like this that will turn this country into a nanny state!


i'm confused here :? .i thought we lived in a democracy :?: .i made my choice and expressed my views.
SORRY if i upset you.


> by JamesM
> 
> Not to mention hanging lights over open top tanks!


now i'm no electrician,but if the lights fell in wouldn't it trip your fuse box :?:


----------



## Mark Evans

nelson said:
			
		

> .try reading the warnings on them.YES THEY HAVE WARNINGS



exactly my point!   you'd use those right?....but your careful yes? try it with AE excel   



			
				nelson said:
			
		

> CAN YOU READ



that's another trick i can do! but guess what!...i still dont have any scars, burns and i have both hands!



			
				nelson said:
			
		

> SORRY if i upset you.



you didn't mate! but I'm sure Richards sales of this product may drop thus causing his business( in a downturn) to maybe suffer a little, if just a handful of people read things like this! 

it's NOT a nuclear bomb! 



			
				nelson said:
			
		

> i thought we lived in a democracy



me too, but it gets worse every day!

thats me done!


----------



## Nelson

> nelson wrote:
> .try reading the warnings on them.YES THEY HAVE WARNINGS
> 
> exactly my point! you'd use those right?....but your careful yes? try it with AE excel


like i said.they HAVE warnings :? 


> nelson wrote:
> CAN YOU READ
> 
> that's another trick i can do! but guess what!...i still dont have any scars, burns and i have both hands!


i edited that.sounded too aggressive  .glad you've no scars and both hands  


> you didn't mate! but I'm sure Richards sales of this product may drop thus causing his business( in a downturn) to maybe suffer a little, if just a handful of people read things like this!


i said i've only used easycarbo.i've nothing against AE.the other two products were there first.


> it's NOT a nuclear bomb!


good to hear it


----------



## ceg4048

OK, I'm gonna lock this thread because everyone needs to sit back, relax and have a piping hot mug of reality juice.

Cheers,


----------

