# Citric Acid - Source of Carbon for plants[?]



## zvirus (20 Dec 2009)

Hi Everyone!

 As we know all of The Aquarium Fertilisers are made from dry salts and organic components like for example Florin Axis from Brightwell Aquatics    http://www.aquabuys.com/page/aqb/PROD/ba_fna2l
 Some producers do not tell what is inside, but some like Brightwell tell Us... a lot I think so. 
Anyway,  I found all the ingredients for Florin Axis on Ebay. 
Question is: Who knows how to mix them? If U tell my how much free carbon plants use every  hour in lets say 100l heavily planted tank i can count how much C6H8O7 add to the tank to keep plants happy or maybe i make things to easy folks[?]

I know a gentleman who is going to check plain citric acid in his tanks. Will let You know what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid


----------



## dw1305 (21 Dec 2009)

Hi all,
Tomas, I can see where you/they are coming from (citric acid is one of the products formed during CAM photosynthesis and in the Krebs cycle), but think the problem would be that citric acid is an acid, albeit a weak one, and to supply enough carbon to be useful, you'd need to use so much citric acid that the pH would fall to unacceptable levels. 

Citric acid is used in lots of biological processes because it can chelate metals and act as an acid buffer, and I don't think that "Florin Axis" is likely to do any harm. The blurb makes all sorts of interesting claims for it (many of which are fairly biologically dubious) but I'd be very surprised if there is any measurable advantage in plant health over using "Florin Axis" over the dry powders and inorganic EDTA chelated micro-elements in James' "all in one solution". <http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/allinone.htm> and CO2. If you did want to add the organic components of "Florin Axis", as well as the inorganics, a "do-it-yourself" leachate of sphagnum peat or leaf mould and some "seaweed  extract" would cover this a lot more cheaply.

I've tried a 1% solution of sodium hydrogen carbonate (sodium bi-carbonate, NaHCO3), (from here http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/articles/cabomba/cabomba.htm) as a carbon source, quite spectacular.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantbrain (21 Dec 2009)

+ 1,
 I'd be a bit harsher than Darrell's comments, but same suspected conclusions.
Fish waste could be classified as organic carbon too  
Same with plants and any rotting leaves etc.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## zvirus (21 Dec 2009)

Darell:


> I've tried a 1% solution of sodium hydrogen carbonate (sodium bi-carbonate, NaHCO3), (from here http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/arti ... abomba.htm) as a carbon source, quite spectacular.




Well it works only with some plants like Egeria Densa and Cabomba which I`ll not keep in my tanks  

So, my next question is: Does Brighwell make money on placebo? I`ve got a good feedback about Florin Axis from our customers at the shop.
I think that it`s very weak acid anyway. I prefer, my plants, and shrimps pH below 7. NaHCO3 rise kH and pH and only few plants can use bicarbonate group.

Tom:


> Fish waste could be classified as organic carbon too
> Same with plants and any rotting leaves etc.


Well, that is true but what if You have more light [ >0.5W/l]? What if You don`t keep hundreds fish like most people?
CO2 and bio-carbon is The Only way.... I think so


----------



## dw1305 (22 Dec 2009)

Hi Tomas,
No I'm not saying that sodium bicarbonate is an alternative, or that citrate/citric acid/"Florin axis" doesn't work, and there is nothing in the "Florin Axis" that is phyotoxic (or toxic to fish or invertebrates). My comments were based around the claim for "Florin Axis" (from Brightwell),  it's very carefully worded in such away that it implies that the it will magically increase photosynthesis/carbon fixation and produce healthier fish and plants, 





> ... A concentrated source of bioavailable carbon, Krebs cycle intermediates, humic and amino acids, and naturally-occurring phytohormones. Krebs Cycle is the series of biochemical reactions that are ultimately responsible for converting complex organic molecules into energy in all aerobic organisms; benefits are more efficient metabolism of foods and available nutrients for fishes and plants alike, as well as enhanced decomposition of latent organic material (and cleaner aquaria).....


 without actually making any claims that are quantified or testable. 

I think it's like "vitamins and  health supplements" or new diets or new golf training tools, companies sell them, people buy them, lots of people think they work, but often there is no quantifiable evidence for them either working or being more effective than the sum of their parts. The similarity in all cases is that they take a small amount of relatively cheap ingredients, combines them and sell them at a huge mark-up, usually based upon the unique unquantifiable properties that they've added (which may or may not exist).

cheers Darrel


----------



## Phil Edwards (23 Jan 2014)

Interesting discussion.  I work for Brightwell, know exactly what goes into FlorinAxis, and have used it in test systems here in my lab with positive results.  I can say for certain that it does work and is less dangerous to your system than gluteraldehyde based products.  That being said, like any non CO2 gas carbon supplement, it's best used in lower light tanks with more robust plants.  In one particular test I was using a 20 gallon long with 2x old 24 watt T5HO bulbs, 28 individually potted stems of L. repens, keeping nutrient levels accepted in the hobby for high light stem tanks, and using 6 drops of FlorinAxis daily.  Growth was modest at first until I put the light on a timer rather than the "on when I get to work and off when I leave 8.5hrs/day".  Once the tank got 12 hrs of light the plants responded positively and algae was minimal.  Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend I figured I'd test what a large single dose would do.  Some of the weaker stems looked worse for the experience and died soon after while the more robust stems weathered it with only slight visible issue.  In order to provide enough carbon to high intensity systems you'd have to put so much in there that you'd risk the plants health, just as what happened when I overdosed the other big liquid carbon supplement which I can't name here.  

To summarize, FlorinAxis works nicely in tanks with modest lighting and robust plants.  If you're looking for something for high light/high growth/picky plant systems, go with CO2 gas.


----------



## BigTom (23 Jan 2014)

Phil Edwards said:


> Interesting discussion. I work for Brightwell, know exactly what goes into FlorinAxis, and have used it in test systems here in my lab with positive results. I can say for certain that it does work and is less dangerous to your system than gluteraldehyde based products. That being said, like any non CO2 gas carbon supplement, it's best used in lower light tanks with more robust plants. In one particular test I was using a 20 gallon long with 2x old 24 watt T5HO bulbs, 28 individually potted stems of L. repens, keeping nutrient levels accepted in the hobby for high light stem tanks, and using 6 drops of FlorinAxis daily. Growth was modest at first until I put the light on a timer rather than the "on when I get to work and off when I leave 8.5hrs/day". Once the tank got 12 hrs of light the plants responded positively and algae was minimal. Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend I figured I'd test what a large single dose would do. Some of the weaker stems looked worse for the experience and died soon after while the more robust stems weathered it with only slight visible issue. In order to provide enough carbon to high intensity systems you'd have to put so much in there that you'd risk the plants health, just as what happened when I overdosed the other big liquid carbon supplement which I can't name here.
> 
> To summarize, FlorinAxis works nicely in tanks with modest lighting and robust plants. If you're looking for something for high light/high growth/picky plant systems, go with CO2 gas.


 

And what happened in the control tank?


----------



## Phil Edwards (23 Jan 2014)

I was testing proof of concept for something other than waterborne nutrient/supplement efficacy so the test design didn't call for a separate control tank.  The control replicates were included within the test tank to ensure homogeneity of nutrition and light among the control and treatment replicates.


----------



## BigTom (23 Jan 2014)

Right I think I must be missing something because I don't really understand how your post provides any evidence for FlorinAxis being beneficial - at low concentrations it didn't kill the plants, at high concentrations it did kill (or visibly damage) the plants. You've not demonstrated that it improves plant growth or health.


----------



## Phil Edwards (23 Jan 2014)

I'll grant you that and can understand the skepticism.  Especially from the mouth of someone who works for the company in question.  I wasn't with the company when this product was developed so I don't know the results of the actual development testing.  I can only say what I've seen/know first-hand and am not going to spout out a load of corporate bull just because of who signs my check.  Based on my experience keeping L. repens in nearly every kind of system; from low light old Flourite, to ultra high light with all the trimmings, given the response of the plant to regular daily dosing of FlorinAxis, I feel it is beneficial as a carbon source in a system with modest lighting.  

I'd still recommend CO2 gas over any other source of carbon if such is within the realm of feasibility for any planted tank aquarist.  In my opinion nothing can beat it.


----------



## BigTom (23 Jan 2014)

Fair enough Phil. Didn't mean to jump down your throat, but it's hugely irritating when companies make all sorts of claims about their products and never provide a shred of evidence to back them up.


----------



## Phil Edwards (23 Jan 2014)

I agree 100% with you Tom.  That's one of my pet peeves and is something I'm trying to rectify to the best of my ability within the limitations of what resources I have and what I can disclose publicly.  I wish I had more info to give based on a more rigorous test.  If you'll give me some time I'll run a better test.  I just need to get the plants and some hardware together to do it.  I'm personally not a fan of liquid carbon supplements but given my position I'd really like to know more concretely how well this stuff performs.  

If you ever have any questions about our products feel free to send me a pm and I'll be happy to tell you everything I can; good, bad, or indifferent.


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Jan 2014)

Well that's all very touching, but I'm afraid I'm completely unconvinced.

No controls means no standard by which to judge deviation. This is fundamental. It still cannot be held that adding citric acid improves plant health.

How are we to judge whether the product works better than not using anything, and how can anyone determine if adding citric acid in lieu of simply adding commonly available nutrient products works as well or better than commonly available products?

Many people who cannot even spell citric acid run successful tanks. Some have a truly low energy tank and do not use anything other than their tap water, and without any additional nutrient loading. Therefore, the use of citric acid cannot in any way be said to have any effect on plant growth unless an identical tank or tanks were run with all the same parameters excluding citric acid addition.

Citric acid is not a primary product of the Citric Acid Cycle. It's not even close. It is just one of the first intermediate products of the Cycle. The Cycle itself is a series of finely balanced chemical reactions that occur when each cell consumes glucose. The result of the cycle is water and CO2. That's where the CO2 that we exhale on every breath comes from. So sugar gets turned into electrical energy by these hundred of reactions. One cannot just bully the cycle and dump citric acid into the cycle without unbalancing these equations and turning that Cycle on it's head.

Another important point is that the burning of glucose and the production of Citrate and its end products occurs within the mitochondria, deep within the center of the cell. That means citric acid added to the tank water must dissolve and find its way intact across a myriad of cell membranes and get into the nucleus unscathed. Highly unlikely that the cell chemistry would simply allow that unless that was the normal method of citric acid assimilation - which it isn't.

So, from both an academic and practical viewpoint, neither provide any evidence of the effectiveness of this dosing strategy.

Furthermore, as mentioned by Tom, it was clearly demonstrated that addition addition of the product cause cell damage.

While there are other Carbon products, such as Excel, that do damage plants at higher dosing, the improvement of growth has been demonstrated and is without doubt. Until a control is used to measure any improvement, it is not reliable enough determination to conclude something works because seems to work.

Also, please note that  Employees and Representatives of companies are not permitted to advertise their products on the forum without first coordinating with Administration. Whether you yourself developed or tested the product, or whether it is sold by your employer, it is a breech of etiquette since it has the appearance, whether real or implied, of Flogging Ones Wares.

I'll lock the thread for now, and we'll determine an appropriate opportunity to remove the lock.

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048 (24 Jan 2014)

Ok folks,
			 We've reopened the thread, so have at it.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain (25 Jan 2014)

Phil Edwards said:


> I agree 100% with you Tom. That's one of my pet peeves and is something I'm trying to rectify to the best of my ability within the limitations of what resources I have and what I can disclose publicly. I wish I had more info to give based on a more rigorous test. If you'll give me some time I'll run a better test. I just need to get the plants and some hardware together to do it. I'm personally not a fan of liquid carbon supplements but given my position I'd really like to know more concretely how well this stuff performs.
> 
> If you ever have any questions about our products feel free to send me a pm and I'll be happy to tell you everything I can; good, bad, or indifferent.


 

Why give marketing info that leads to such issues to start with? Smells like poo, looks like poo......what do you expect?
Aquarist get hammered with all sorts of BS. There needs some consensus and logic to support a claim. I make hypothesis all the time, but I am not seeing anything and I'm clear that they are speculation. 
If I can falsify something, then I can be very sure of myself about that issue. 

Citric acid is used a weak ligand chelator for a variety of vitamins and for trace element delivery(including agriculture). Acetic acid is a source of CO2 via bacteria degradation and it will break down the KH and soften the water. Adding a little bit of that will help, too much will pickle the plant/kill fish however.
The Krebs/TCA cycle claim, that is problematic. 

Like Acetic acid(AI in vinegar), it's a general biocide. Lemon juice contains 5-8% citric acid also. Squeeze my lemon. It is used as a pesticide for agriculture pest, same with Acetic acid. Mechanism of action are likely the same via the pH ion trap hypothesis.
HCL and other acids do not have the similar molar toxicity to plants that acetic acid does. pH ion trap suggest this and plants may have a better way to deal with this than other pest and algae.

While UKAPS has their policies in place for their own reasons, I have no issues with open discussions. I'll hammer a topic pretty good till I'm convinced of the logic, or lack of it, or it's just not able to be determined yet. 
That's how we learn. 

If something kills the smaller pest on aquatic plants, then that, rather than some other claim is more likely at play. Carbon sources need tracked via atoms, much like using 14C labeled Glutaraldehyde to see where the Carbon is going and who gets what and how with aquatic plants, no one has done that and with good reason, there's not much $ in it.
 20,000$ for equipment and to make the stuff, then the rest of the funding and labor required. Nope, that ain't happening.

Chelating agents: see page 4
http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_003d/0901b8038003db82.pdf?filepath=versene/pdfs/noreg/113-01259.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Also here:


Now how might something that chelates, even just a little bit, influence aquatic plant growth or that is a mild biocide?
Any of that have much to do with the TCA cycle?


----------



## ceg4048 (25 Jan 2014)

Thanks for the elucidation Tom. That's a good point about the chelating effects of the acid. So I guess if there were some issues associated with bioavailability of trace metals then there may be some positive effect of chelation. Even so, that chart shows that citric acid is a lousy chelate anyway. And of course, NO, there is little relevance at all to the TCA cycle.

Marketing hype is exactly the same when it comes to pushing some £500 per liter brand just because it supposedly has Amino acids in it. Total waste of money. Just feed the plants basic nutrients and CO2 and every cell will produce their own citrates in their TCA cycle. The whole point of TCA Cycle burning glucose is to produce ATP, which equal energy.

Here is a schematic of TCA Cycle folks. This is what happens when you breathe Oxygen and when you eat. The carbohydrates that you eat turns into glucose. Glucose reactions then produces Pyruvate in a procedure called Glycolysis, and that product then enters the cycle shown below at the top of the chart labeled "Pyruvic Acid."  

Plants produce their own glucose via photosynthesis. That's the whole point of photosynthesis.
The glucose is then transported to every cell.
So the idea is to add more glucose which can then produce more Pyruvic acid. That's accomplished  by improving the photosynthetic yield, NOT by bypassing it.






Citric acid is great for removing hard water stains on the glass though.

By the way, we temporarily locked the thread not because of the subject matter, but for other admin reasons.

Cheers,


----------



## Phil Edwards (25 Jan 2014)

While I'd love to continue my part in this discussion, after speaking with the staff and because I'm here as a hobbyist and not a sponsor (which BA is not at the moment), I think it's best for all involved that I step out.  I'd be happy to continue any discussion of this via private conversation if any of you wish to.


----------



## rebel (25 Nov 2016)

That's a classical response indeed. Build up hype and talk about some experiment (without a control) but when the going gets scientific and some evidence is requested, they get to step out. 

Yes I realise this was 2014 but nothing about the scientific method has changed (the scientific method addresses to correct inherent human bias) and nor has the need for control groups.


----------



## Phil Edwards (4 Dec 2016)

Rebel,

I apologize for giving the impression that I was unwilling to continue discussion on this topic.  The fact was that I was working for the company in question at the time and my participation in this thread was deemed too close to technical support/advertising for a non-forum sponsor to be participating in, so I was kindly asked to stop, which I did.  As far as what tests, such as they were, were run; I was doing them on my own accord and for my own curiousity with limited resources.  As I stated, any comparisons or observations I made were based on years of keeping the species in question in personal systems.  I don't believe I personally made any wild claims or hyped things up in any of my statements.  I was simply trying to help a hobbyist with a question that I had exact product formulation information for and first-hand experience using.  Shame on me for attempting to be helpful.


----------

