Not a good write up for liquid carbon

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

When mistakenly overdosed with liquid carbon I had tank full of Val completely die off, the plants were not even rescuable in that they did not grow again from the base etc... all other plants were fine (bit of a reaxrion from the dwarf sag but plants survived). I would also agree though that with liquid carbon dosed at the correct level Vals growth does not seem to be negatively affected.

 

[tiger15]

Everything is toxic in excess. The difference between medicine and toxin is the dosage. Before I used Glut, I did a research and compiled the following toxicity list.

Toxicity of glutaraldehyde

96h acute Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 11.2 mg/L
Bluegill sunfish NOEC = 10 mg/L
48h acute Oyster larvae LC50 = 2.1 mg/L
96h acute Green crabs LC50 = 465 mg/L
96h acute Grass shrimp LC50 = 41 mg/L
48h acute Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.35 mg/L
Daphnia magna NOEC = 0.32 mg/L
96h algal growth inhibition Selenastrum capricornutum ILm = 3.9 mg/L
Algal inhibition Selenastrum subcapitata IC50=1 to 1.8 mg/L
96h algal growth inhibition Scenedesmus subspicatus EC50 = 0.9 mg/L
Bacterial inhibition Sewage microbes IC50 = 25-34 mg/L
96h O. mykiss (Trout hatch rate) IC50 = 1.82 mg/L
96h C. dubia (Daphnia reproduction) IC50 = 4.7 mg/L

*EC=Effective concentration; IC=Inhibition concentration; LC=Lethal concentration; NOEC=No observed effect concentration

Based on the toxicity test compilation, algae and daphnia are most sensitive (0.32 to 1.8 ppm), shrimp and fish are least (10 to 41 ppm). This is why you can safely over dose Glut to control algae with no harm to fish and invert. Another safety feature of Glut is that its half life is about 10 hours in aquas solution so it will not accumulate toxicity effect in daily dosage. Regretfully, there are no toxicity tests on higher plants but many reported that Vals, Hornwort and mosses are sensitive.

Note that SeaChem recommends 0.4 ppm daily dosage for glut, and 2 ppm after WC. The low daily dosage is only good for carbon, and the 5x after WC is critical to control algae. Seachem is dancing around why you need higher dosage after WC, apparently, if you don't, it will be below the threshold necessary to combat algae.

I don't dose glut daily as I have CO2. But I dose 5x Glut after each WC in combination with spot treatment with peroxide on exposed plants, rock and hard surfaces during WC to control algae. One time I had an ick outbreak in my tank and I dosed 5x Glut daily for a week to control ick. Glut is an ingredient of Seachem Paraguard and can control ick at high dosage. The ick was knocked off and there was no collateral damage to my fish and plants, but a collateral benefit to eliminate fugitive mosses I had trouble getting rid of once for all.

 

[Chuck Turtleman]

Why not 🙂

It undergoes chemical reaction in aqueous environments releasing CO2, some plants (sorry but no way am I digging out that hard to find research paper 😉) can utilize the molecule more directly (in biosynthetic pathway - not a pathway that is activated in the presence of more accessible CO2, but this is a common cellular adaptation)

Because it contains no liquid CO2 yet is marketed as such. At room temp under no pressure, that's an impossible claim and it misleads consumers. And while it does produce *some* CO2 from the chemical reaction, it's a negligible amount. I have done a 5x dose and it didn't even register on a drop checker. From the article being discussed: "
It is therefore a given that, as used in the aquarium, glutaraldehyde has no measurably proven enhancing effects on the CO2 content in the water. This can also easily be ascertained with permanent tests such as the X JBL CO2-pH Permanent Test or the JBL CO2 Direct Test Set . Of course, marginal quantities of CO2 are generated during the degeneration process. But these are too low to be measurable and therefore below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth"

I don't hate the product and it does have its uses, but I do not believe it increases plant health first and foremost; and if anything it has a negative impact on flora and fauna long term.

 

[tiger15]

I don’t think SeaChem ever claims that Excel is a CO2 source, rather, it is an intermediate carbon compound source that is part of the photosynthetic carbon cycle. Every organic compound generates some CO2 in the mineralization process, but the amount generated relative to O2 consumed is insignificant to harmful. For instance, sugar is a CO2 source but dosing sugar can lead to bacterial bloom and depletion of O2.

 

[alto]

Note that SeaChem recommends 0.4 ppm daily dosage for glut, and 2 ppm after WC. The low daily dosage is only good for carbon, and the 5x after WC is critical to control algae. Seachem is dancing around why you need higher dosage after WC, apparently, if you don't, it will be below the threshold necessary to combat algae.

Can you link to that data on Seachem website?

Glut is an ingredient of Seachem Paraguard and can control ick at high dosage

again link to Seachem site would be grand, this is all I find

ParaGuard™ employs a proprietary, synergistic blend of aldehydes, malachite green, and fish protective polymers

In terms of treating ich outbreak in your tank, what was the source of the glutaraldehyde you used?

It is therefore a given that, as used in the aquarium, glutaraldehyde has no measurably proven enhancing effects on the CO2 content in the water. This can also easily be ascertained with permanent tests such as the X JBL CO2-pH Permanent Test or the JBL CO2 Direct Test Set . Of course, marginal quantities of CO2 are generated during the degeneration process. But these are too low to be measurable and therefore below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth"

Proprietary article or independent study?
(I’ve not seen the article but it reads like marketing from from JBL 😉)

Plants can sequester CO2 during nighttime/dark periods so somewhat sceptical of this broad statement

below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth

Because it contains no liquid CO2 yet is marketed as such

Seachem Flourish Excel Information page
Does Seachem make alternate claims elsewhere using the “liquid carbon” term?

I linked an article in another glutaraldehyde discussion, where plant mass measurements showed increased growth in response to glutaraldehyde (independent study), though it’s not clear whether the increase is in response to released CO2 or actual incorporation of the glutaraldehyde molecule
Unfortunately isotope labeled glutaraldehyde studies are a significant undertaking, further isotope effects occur complicating the process

 

[Chuck Turtleman]

Does Seachem make alternate claims elsewhere using the “liquid carbon” term?

Seachem is probably the closest to honest in that they simply say "bioavailable carbon source for the planted aquarium," which it still isn't, but one could at least argue that chemical reactions occur that make that true in a round about way. API on the other hand actively calls their product "CO2 Booster." Anyone reading the description is likely to walk away thinking that these products are CO2 in a bottle.
My own take for why it "works" is simply that plants are going to get more nutrients and light once algae is drastically reduced.

 

[tiger15]

I calculated the dosage based on Seachem directions:
Seachem Excel 1.5% Glutaraldehyde
Directions: On initial use or after a major (> 40%) water change, use 1 capful (5 mL) for every 40 L (10 US gallons). Thereafter use 1 capful for every 200 L (50 US gallons) daily or every other day.
1 gal = 3785.41 ml
1.5% Glut = 1.5*1000000/100 = 15,000 ppm
Initial after WC: 5ml of 1.5% Glut in 10 gal = 15000 * 5 / (10*3785.41) = 2 ppm
Normal daily: 5ml of 1.5% Glut in 50 gal = 15000 * 5 / (50*3785.41) = 0.4 ppm

The ingredients of Paraguard can be found in this link:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailym...pdf&name=984f46c0-6651-46c6-b5f2-e86b557953c7
Directions: Use 5 mL (1 capful) to every 40 L (10 gal) to attain therapeutic levels of GLUTARAL 0.013 mg in 1 mL (13 mg/l) and Malachite Green 0.00004 mg in 1 mL (0.04 mg/l)

I don't really use Seachem Excel, but cheaper commercial Metricide at different Glut concentration, so I have to calculate carefully to adjust for the right dosage.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Seachem is probably the closest to honest in that they simply say "bioavailable carbon source for the planted aquarium," which it still isn't, but one could at least argue that chemical reactions occur that make that true in a round about way.

The Seachem marketing blurb is absolutely world class in terms of <"implying something">, but without ever saying anything that could be disproved in a court of law.

It used to really annoy me, but now I quite enjoy reading them.

cheers Darrel

 

[rebel]

To be fair, none of the aquarium products (Seachem or otherwise) have peer reviewed papers to back their efficacy and long lists of toxicity data. 🙂

 

[alto]

The Seachem marketing blurb is absolutely world class in terms of <"implying something">, but without ever saying anything that could be disproved in a court of law.

It’s a shame, Seachem website used to include loads of experimental data and articles (I suspect at that time they were a Greg Morin venture rather than the present business model) and Greg Morin posted regularly on the APD list

Of course if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants ... 😀

 

[rebel]

if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants

Exactly!

Marketing and public opinion always trumps science when it comes to various products. For niche hobbies, I don't really expect companies to spend money to do peer reviewed science and publications just to sell something. A fancy label will be cheaper and it's just cheaper to get an instagram influenzer to endorse it.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I suspect at that time they were a Greg Morin venture rather than the present business model) and Greg Morin posted regularly on the APD list

He used to post on <"the Krib"> as well.

Of course if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants

Back to <"Calvin-Benson">.

A fancy label will be cheaper and it's just cheaper to get an instagram influenzer to endorse it.

It is a shame, but I'm sure you are right, and we are unlikely to ever find out how any of these products actually function.

cheers Darrel

 

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

https://www.jbl.de/?lang=en&mod=blog&func=detail&id=123

This explains a lot!!

 

[Guest]

So long as it's used responsibly and in the correct manufacturers recommend dose it should be fine.

 

[sanj]

This post is like Groundhog Day.

Clive as usual makes the most sense (8 October 2017) and yet as you progress through the threads it's like nobody read the original comments.

I am going to auto dose on one of my tanks for the next year. It hasn't had co2 injection for somewhere like a year to 18 months perhaps more.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

This post is like Groundhog Day.

We have a <"few threads"> like this.

I start from a simpler premise, which is that is that if you follow a <"risk management approach"> to fish keeping you are likely to accidentally kill your livestock less frequently. Under that approach, both liquid carbon and CO2 are entirely avoidable risk factors and I don't, and won't, use them.

cheers Darrel

 

[sanj]

I understand. You have been steadfast in that all these years.

The results from CO2 injection can be fantastic, but I lost my supplier a while ago and did not find a new source. I am afraid life dictates changes and I havent been able to focus on the hobby, so all tanks have had no co2 injection for a long time.

I did a few cursory searches for long established aquariums with liquid carbon dosing, but did not see much. I have never used it for that purpose.

I guess the only way I will know is by doing it myself. I intend to use automated dosing which at least will provide some consistency.

 

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

I personally have found it more use up used as a weekly algecide around water changes rather than a carbon supplement.

 

[Guest]

I understand. You have been steadfast in that all these years.

The results from CO2 injection can be fantastic, but I lost my supplier a while ago and did not find a new source. I am afraid life dictates changes and I havent been able to focus on the hobby, so all tanks have had no co2 injection for a long time.

I did a few cursory searches for long established aquariums with liquid carbon dosing, but did not see much. I have never used it for that purpose.

I guess the only way I will know is by doing it myself. I intend to use automated dosing which at least will provide some consistency.

Hi Sanj, good to see you're still about. I dose it daily but only as a supplement to my pressurised CO2, mainly as an algicide. But I think some sort of additional carbon source is better than none.

 

[alto]

Clive as usual makes the most sense (8 October 2017) and yet as you progress through the threads it's like nobody read the original comments.

I read his post
It just omits some science 😉

The chemical reactions of glutaraldehyde compounds under various aquatic conditions is well documented - there is CO2 release (re laws/foundations of organic chemical reactions)
There are some studies with aquatic plants measuring significant increase in mass when Seachem Excel was added to the growth environment
There are significant structural differences between the form of glutaraldehyde compound sold by Seachem vs Glutaraldehyde solution sold in the “sanitation” industry