Search the Community

A BIG THANK YOU to @Guppysnail and @Odd Duck for this concept, for the editing of this article and for reviewing it for accuracy and errors! A Brief History of Prime® An abbreviated history of dechlorinators and detoxifiers and their evolution Discussions on whether dechlorination and detoxification chemicals like Seachem Prime® actually work, be they anecdotal or chemical equations, are not hard to find. As the ingredients are largely kept secret, most discussions are laden with speculative chemistry which usually results in more speculation, often contentious speculation. Rather than just adding to the mountains of speculation on what might be in Prime® or other commercial products, I thought it may prove more revealing to present examples of similar works that have been performed, tested, and documented by many world-class institutions over the course of nearly a century. To that end, I’ve collected a small sampling of actual test results on the detoxification of water for aquatics, performed by a variety of authoritative entities from around the world into a chronology, and I’ve compiled them here. Please find below a brief, partial review of the chemicals and techniques that have been used by laboratories and universities, as well as several of the pivotal patents awarded for well-known dechlorinator/detoxifiers, including the use of specific types of UV lighting. This information may shine some light on what dechlorinators can and cannot do, and perhaps, through their history, we may see how they evolved into the products we currently use. Prime Suspects Virtually all dechlorination chemicals that claim to neutralize ammonia are sulfur based. If the dechlorinator claims the additional detoxification of nitrites and nitrates, formaldehyde is also likely present. You can easily smell the sulfur and the formaldehyde in many of them. “Contains Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts” On the Seachem Prime® bottle, you’ll find only the above statement and little else about what it contains. The most likely suspect in that vague description is Sodium Dithionite, a chemical designed in 1904 by BASF. This same chemical is also known as Sodium Hydrosulfite and Sodium Bisulfite. It is largely used as a ‘reducing agent’ which simply means it ‘reduces’ a target chemical(s) from a stable form (resisting change) to an unstable one that degrades into something that is easily dissolved, dissipated (like a gas), precipitated, or converted to something innocuous. To that end, Sodium Dithionite and several related variant chemicals are logical suspects to be in Prime®. As described in a 1991 study; “Selecting a Dechlorinating Chemical for a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Georgia, 1991”, they cite that Sodium Dithionate in water will often decay into one or more of the chemicals or variants thereof listed below: Note: Reprinted from Selecting a Dechlorinating Chemical for a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Georgia, 1991, Dipak Bagchi and Roy Thomas Kelley, Jr., Georgia Water Resources Conference and the Institute of Natural Resources at The University of Georgia As mentioned above, the first chemical listed is of particular interest, sulfur dioxide. This gas is a natural product of the decay of Sodium Dithionite as well as several other chemicals used for dechlorination. You can easily smell the sulfur dioxide when you open the Prime® bottle. In water, it creates sulfurous acids and as you’ll see below in Prime Time, sulfur dioxide and ‘sulfurous acids’ have been used effectively to remove chlorine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate from wastewater--and later for aquatics-- for decades. Prime Beefs It is not uncommon to read arguments suggesting that chemicals like Prime® do NOT detoxify ammonia and nitrites. I have read multiple exclamations that ‘this is only true for chlorine and not ammonia, nitrite nor nitrate,’ assertions that it ‘totally removes the oxygen from the water,’ even that detoxification of ammonia and nitrite is ‘an outright fraudulent claim by the manufacturers.’ In fact, in most dialogues I’ve read, there seems to be an incentive to disprove the manufacturers’ claims rather than explain them. However, you’ll see below, these chemicals were first employed to detoxify ammonia and nitrite, almost a century ago, even before chlorination was in widespread use. Prime Time This science is far from new. Long before dechlorination in aquatics was a concern, compounds related to modern dechlorinators were first used for detoxifying ammonia, NOT chlorine. In 1932, a study was performed by the Bowne Hall of Chemistry at Syracuse University on converting toxic ammonia to far less toxic ammonium through the use of hydrogen sulfide (H2S): A Phase Study of the System Ammonia-Hydrogen Sulfide, Leopold Scheflan and C.R. McCrosky, American Chemical Society, 1932 This study focuses largely on how certain plant life forms use ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate, with and without the use of a sulfurous additive. This study and its precursors from several 1929 studies are considered to be the pioneering events that birthed the modern dechlorination and detoxification chemicals in use today. But this was just the beginning. By 1935, these techniques were already being modified for use as protection for a variety of aquatic life forms from toxic ammonia levels by the conversion of ammonia to ammonium salts. Performed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, this 1935 study may be the first published instance of using sulfur-based chemicals to detoxify ammonia, nitrite and nitrate to protect (microbial) various aquatic life forms: Note: Reprinted from The Assimilation of Ammonium Nitrogen by Nitzchia Closterium and Other Marine Phytoplankton A substantial leap in the cognizance of how these reactions occur (from the standpoint of chemistry) took place in 1949. Although it was well known that free ammonia could be neutralized and converted to ammonium salts with sulfur-based acids, this was first described in the study below, performed by the U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, “Acidic Dissociation Constant of Ammonium Ion at 0* to 50* C, and the Base Strength of Ammonia.” Although this study is quantified in units of the energy generated during the reduction of ammonia and nitrites (so the table axes are in temperatures and mols), as opposed to being dedicated to how this affects aquatic life forms, it clearly documents to great success the reduction (detoxification) of chlorine, ammonia, and nitrites with sulfurous acids. In addition, the 1949 study below is possibly the first published instance where a discussion on nitrates and reducing nitrates appears (as well as perhaps being the first detailing of the ammonia/ammonium equilibrium relationship): Acidic Dissociation Constant of Ammonium Ion at 0, by Roger G . Bates and Gladys D. Pinching, U. S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Research Paper RP 1982, Volume 42, May 1949 At first, ammonia was largely the culprit they sought to reduce. Much later, as The Nitrogen Cycle was becoming more widely understood, more works were performed to examine removal or negation of other toxins, primarily with respect to nitrites, as their toxicity towards aquatic life was not well quantified yet. What was found is that the very mechanisms that detoxify chlorine and chloramine will also detoxify ammonia, nitrates and nitrites, just not in the same time frame. Prime Examples While The Nitrogen Cycle has been understood in varying degrees for decades, the pivotal document that brought it to the fore in modern aquaria was published in 1986 and was known as “Anammox”. Anammox (“anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria that are able to oxidize ammonia and reduce nitrite to produce N2 gas”) is an acronym for the first observation of ammonia- and nitrite-reducing bacteria, and is well described here: Frontiers | Biogeography of anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria An excerpt from the above study focusing on the history of The Nitrogen Cycle can be read here: A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle† | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This excerpt highlights the 1986 work as the pivotal shift in awareness of The Nitrogen Cycle from the scientific community to the global aquatics’ community. The study contains a fantastic timeline chart, ‘A Timeline of Human Awareness of The Nitrogen Cycle,’ which is reproduced at the end of this article. * Skipping a decade or two, we find another excerpt from papers published in 1997 and 2009 that focus entirely on detoxifying nitrites, again with sulfur-based compounds. An oceanic research article on the conversion of nitrites to nitrogen gas with sulfur-based acids was hidden away in an optical physics publication; Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry in 2009: Removal of nitrite with sulfamic acid for nitrate N and O isotope analysis with the denitrifier method - 2009 - Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry This article employed data from what are now historically pivotal nitrite reduction tests that were first published in Deep Sea Research—Oceanographic Research Papers in 1997. In this work, they found the addition of sulfurous acids and sulfur dioxide gas (a gas often released when some of the bisulfite salts mentioned above react with these chemicals and water) could convert nitrites to harmless salts and simple nitrogen gas. Additionally, in a recent edition of the 1955 publication “Methods in Enzymology”, we find detailed references to nitrite and nitrate reduction using sodium dithionate in studies performed in 1971 and 1976 respectively: Methods in Enzymology (1955): Methods in Enzymology Nitrite reduction using Sodium Dithionate (1971): Nitrite reductase - ScienceDirect Nitrate reduction using Sodium Dithionate (1976): Minimization of a sodium dithionite-derived interference in nitrate reductase-methyl viologen reactions (Above from the Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Analytical Chemistry Division, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) Prime Cuts ARG: AquaScience Research Group (Amquel®, ChlorAm-X®😞 “Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water-1987” It was a variant of the BASF’s original Sodium Dithionate with added formaldehyde known as Sodium Formaldehyde Hydrosulfite or “SFB” that would ultimately prove to be the game changer for aquatics use. Although you’ll see numerous arguments as to what chemicals are used and what they can actually do, there is little argument over what singular paper contributed the most to the art of dechlorination and detoxification for modern aquaria. A phenomenal work done by renowned chemist John Farrell Kuhns, “Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water” was published in 1987 and was the first quantified analysis of how “Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts,” specifically a formaldehyde variant of these--SFB--reduced chlorine, chloramine, and ammonia and was even tested with live, aquatic animals. He was awarded US and European patents for this work and his formula ultimately became the products Amquel® and ChlorAm-X® amongst others. Here is a link to the original European patent: Method and product for removal of chloramines, chlorine and ammonia from aquaculture water - European Patent Office - EP 0203741 B1 (storage.googleapis.com) Despite the mass of data dating from 1929, and despite all of the prior research, these techniques would not reach the general aquatic community until the 1987 Kuhns work. Therefore, it would be difficult to argue against the historical significance of the Kuhns patent. It not only demonstrated that water could be detoxified to safe levels for aquatic life, but it also quantified the results and even the time required for specific toxin reduction. As such, this singular document paved the way for virtually every dechlorinator and ammonia detoxifier made since. A Tetra Cardinal Tetra Werke: “Agent for the elimination of active chlorine compounds from water”-1988 The Kuhns patent was quickly followed by another dechlorinator patent for Tetra in 1988, invented by Ritter Gunter. Tetra’s patent also used a related variant of Sodium Dithionate with formaldehyde, sodium hydroxymethylsulfonate, and was focused on chlorine, chloramine but especially ammonia. Tetra published the most formulae of all the dechlorination patents as well as extensive results from tests on the effects of zeolites on ammonia: US Patent for Agent for the elimination of active chlorine compounds from water (Patent # 4,786,434 ) Chlor/Amine Tetra’s findings were historically pivotal in that they described and rectified the chloramine problem of ammonia being released from chloramine when removing the chlorine portion. Many of us may remember using Sodium Thiosulfate to remove chlorine years ago. When chloramine became the dominant chemical to negate, Sodium Thiosulfate fell short because in negating the chlorine portion of chloramine, it released the ammonia in chloramine, creating a secondary issue. Tetra’s patent delves deeply into this original problem and details the addition of formaldehyde and zeolites to negate ammonia. Tetra demonstrated that they could reach a 95%-100% reduction of ammonia by adding formaldehyde and zeolites to Sodium Dithionite. The Tetra patent is in some ways the most interesting in that it supplies the most documentation and supporting formulae of all the dechlorination/detoxification patents. Yet Kuhns himself doubted these chemicals would have a meaningful effect on nitrites and nitrates. It would take another variant and almost two decades for that to be realized. On the Fritz… “Process for Treating Water”, Fritz Industries, Inc. 2004 It was a third invention by Tiffani Furlough and Kevin Senkevech that saw a US patent awarded to Fritz Industries in 2004, where the addition of formaldehydes to Sodium Dithionate (and other chemicals) created a variant known as Sodium Formaldehydesulfoxylate or “SFS.” In this patent it was demonstrated that SFS not only reduced chlorine, chloramine and ammonia, but also nitrites and nitrates significantly in just minutes. With these findings, the ability to chemically reduce chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate was not only demonstrated, but it was also quantified (see some charts from their findings below). US Patent for Process for treating water Patent (Patent # 7,097,773 issued August 29, 2006) Less Nitrates, Less Headaches Although it was referring to water purification for agriculture rather than aquatics, even the pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG got into the action with a 2004 patent awarded where they actually achieved 100% removal of nitrates using sulfur dioxide gas: Process for the Reduction of Concentration of Nitrates and/or Nitrogen-Containing Compounds by Means of SO2 Prime Numbers From the 2006 Fritz Aquatics US Patent (0-10 minutes-performed at a pH of 8.1): Below, the nitrates were removed from the graph shown above for improved resolution: Note 1: The concentration of pollutants in the test sample was determined by methods described in Hach Water Analysis Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1992. Free and total chlorine, P.761; Ammonia, Salicylate Method, P. 781; Nitrite, Diazotization Method, P784; Nitrate, Cadmium Reduction Method (High Range), P. 783. From the 1987 Amquel US Patent (with varying pH values indicated): In the first graph, the chlorine degrades very quickly to 0% in under an hour. However, on the second graph for chloramine, notice when the initial chlorine is removed, the resultant ammonia actually RISES temporarily (from the chloramine being split apart into chlorine and ammonia). This is because the time for ammonia reduction is longer than chlorine. But ultimately, they both drop precipitously (Note: The pH significantly affects the reduction): As explained in Prime Cuts below, a dechlorinator-only product is probably just Sodium Dithionite alone. However, a dechlorinator that detoxifies ammonia, nitrite and nitrate is most likely a combination of Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde. Prima Facie Although far from exhaustive, what follows are some informal tests which strongly suggest that Seachem Prime® seems to contain Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde. As mentioned above, Sodium Dithionite was originally developed in 1904 as an agent for dyeing and rust removal as it proved to be quite effective in removing stains and preparing fabrics and paper for dyeing. As such, it ‘reduces’ the iron in rust (ferric) to a water-soluble iron (ferrous) that dissolves.[1] Left: 40mg of Rust Powder (Fe2O3) in 25ml of Water (pH=8), Right: 40mg of Rust Powder has nearly dissolved in 25ml of Prime® (T=5 min.) A Standard Chemistry Flame Color Test Indicates that Prime® Tests Positive for Sodium Compounds Prime® Tests Positive for Formaldehyde (T=30m) Prime® Tests Positive for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (T=15s) The earliest dechlorinators (circa 1930) contained Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) or infused this gas into water. Sodium Dithionite decays into SO2, however H2S smells very similar to Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) such that we needed to verify that Prime® did NOT contain H2S: Prime® Tests NEGATIVE for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) (T=15s) What a Difference a Day Makes An important feature of Prime® that many of us have relied upon is the ability to detoxify ammonia, nitrite and nitrate for approximately 24-48 hours. This time frame is approximate and is subject to the concentration and the pH of the water. A little clarity on what’s taking place is in order at this point. The sulfur/formaldehyde-based chemicals used in most dechlorinators/detoxifiers do not convert ammonia to ammonium but instead, they actually “bind” elements from Sodium Dithionite (and formaldehyde) to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate and convert them into non-toxic, stable salts rendering them harmless. To illustrate this using ammonia as an example, in the ClorAm-X® data sheet, they demonstrated how free ammonia combines with the sulfur/formaldehyde-based chemicals used to form a non-toxic salt, aminomethanesulfonate or AMS: AquaScience Research Group, Inc (hikariusa.com) In fact, AMS is not only non-toxic; it is a known food source for specific aerobic bacteria, and it has actually been used to treat neurological disorders in schooling (zebra) fish: Aminomethanesulfonic acid illuminates the boundary between full and partial agonists of the pentameric glycine receptor 1. Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, Division of Biosciences, University College London, United Kingdom; 2. Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, United States; 3. Laboratory of Soft Matter Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; 4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, United States And a supporting quote from “KoiNet, Koi Show Water Management (South Africa)" on AMS: “…(the) end of the molecule reacts with ammonia to form aminomethanesulfonate (AMS), a non-toxic, stable water-soluble substance, which can be acted upon by the nitrifying bacteria in biological filtration if needed. On the other hand, the sulfonate-side of the molecule declorinates the water of any hypochlorite, the so called “chlorine”. And a further trick in its box: it will detoxify all three species of chloramine by the combined action of both ends of the molecule. How versatile can you be if both hands are useful?” Although not identical in species, the use of AMS as a food source for ‘good’ bacteria is well known: Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample While secondary to detoxification, it is a no less remarkable engineering feat, that AMS is usable to the nitrifying bacteria (particularly the ‘nitrite eaters’) so cycling continues. Seachem implies there’s an expiration of its detoxification via 'reversion back to ammonia' after the 24–48-hour period has expired; however literal reversion of AMS to ammonia is almost impossible. The free ammonia is now part of a stable compound that will not even begin to release the ammonia without a great rise in pH (>9.3) or without additional chemical or electronic energy (such as electrolysis) being applied. From the Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC-1953 In fact, in some instances such as with nitrite and nitrate reversion is now literally impossible as portions of the negated nitrite and nitrate were dissociated and released as N2 gas (see "Anammox" study above). In reality the “reversion” is most likely a summation referring to new ammonia, nitrate and nitrite being created unabated, representing new toxin buildup over the 24–48-hour period. However, over time the detoxification chemicals, Sodium Dithionite and Formaldehyde themselves do break down into sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde and other gasses which eventually dissipate. To that end, perhaps the best metric of how long the protection lasts might be the actual decay times of sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde in free air: Left: Atmospheric decay distances and times for sulphur and nitrogen oxides estimated from air and precipitation monitoring in eastern Canada-1989---Right: Formaldehyde Vapor Characteristics in Varied Decontamination Environments-2021 Above values are in half-lives. In both instances, we see an over 50% loss in sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde within the first 14-16 hours with 24-40 hours being essentially the point at which most has dissipated. These decay times would suggest that Prime® needs be dosed daily for adequate protection. There’s Nothing New, especially Under the Sun Ultraviolet light is often employed for the use of deliberate decomposition of chemicals. UV light is classified into three categories, UVA, UVB, and UVC, with UVC being the shortest wavelength of UV light and is highly destructive to microorganisms. It is UVC light that is employed in aquarium UV sterilizers. UVC is also destructive to many chemicals, and as such, is often employed to effect chemical-free breakdown of chlorine and chloramine, but especially for chloramine. As shown in the graph below, UVC can also completely break down chlorine and all three forms of chloramine in just hours. The circles represent the knee of the curves when chlorine has been exhausted and when chloramine destruction dominates in the graph: The above graph is from Bad Gas - General Discussion - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) Removal of chlorine products, however, is not always desirable. The ability of UVC light from the sun to destroy chlorine and chloramine is a serious concern in water treatment facilities. Without some form of protection, using a swimming pool as an example, chlorine and chloramine can be nearly stripped of all disinfection properties by the sun’s UVC output within a day. As a result, there are three types of chloramines (mono-, di- and tri-chloramines) employed, as each decay at different rates and under different ‘colors’ of UV sunlight as the day progresses. This, and chemical additives (like cyanuric acid), are just some attempts to protect chlorine and chloramine from breakdown under UV light. But--what has been postulated and speculated about in the world of aquatics--is how UVC affects ammonia, if at all. It is true that UV light also disassociates ammonia, yet it’s been noted that a typical UVC light for aquarium disinfection fails to reduce ammonia levels. This is because UVC light is very inefficient for removing ammonia, such that chemical methods have proven more popular. However, as mentioned above, UV light literally comes in several ‘colors.’ The type of UV light that DOES destroy ammonia, however, is not UVC, but UVA. UVA is the longest wavelength UV light and is most well known as the common “blacklight.” UVA affords almost no disinfection properties but can remove ammonia, even directly out of the air. Blacklights and Ammonia A 2020 study was performed jointly by the Department of Animal Biosystems Sciences, Chungnam National University (Korea), the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University and the Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University with the goal to reduce ammonia gas in swine farms and poultry barns. They found that ammonia may be partially reduced by the use of blacklight or UVA. However, it’s inefficient and requires a great deal of power as well as being highly affected by relative humidity (RH) and ambient light. As such, results were far from exhaustive, as even their best efforts resulted in less than 19% reduction of ammonia and as low as under 3% reduction. This is an excerpt from that study, summarizing their findings: “5. Conclusion The results of the study provide evidence that photocatalysis with TiO2 coating and UV-A light can reduce gas concentrations of NH3. The particular % reduction depends on the presence of photocatalyst, RH, light type (intensity), treatment time, and dust accumulation on the photocatalyst surface. In the case of NH3, the % reduction varied from 2.6– 18.7% and was affected by RH and light intensity. The % reduction of NH3 was the highest at 12% RH and increased with treatment time and light intensity. The results warrant scaling up to pilot-scale where the technology could be evaluated with economic analyses. It is necessary to investigate the practical applicability to the real system through large scale studies.” From Effects of UV-A Light Treatment on Ammonia in Lab-Scale Prime Rates Yet, we’ve only scratched the surface here for evidence. There are literally hundreds of experiments and studies from around the world that suggest the chemicals SFB and SFS and related compounds, probably in use in Prime®, do in fact detoxify ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, chlorine and chloramine, and have done so for decades, with the reduction of ammonia dating from 1929, the reduction of nitrite dating back to 1935 and the reduction of nitrate in 1949. In fact, the only common detriment repeatedly cited in using these chemicals is the depletion of oxygen along with the reduction of the toxins, as this is concurrent with reduction of the toxins. There is a fundamental difference, however. The oxygen is quickly replaced with simple aeration, whereas chlorine, chloramine, nitrite, and nitrate are predictably reduced until the water volume has been changed in some manner. The graph below displays oxygen depletion from a variety of popular aquarium medications and Prime®. This was measured in a 29-gallon tank that had one small air stone for O2 replenishment. Notice how quickly the oxygen is restored by simple aeration. A normal dose of Prime® reduces O2 by about 0.5 PPM yet returns to full oxygen saturation in only 15 minutes (or a full 4 hours with Prime®’s 5X Emergency Dose): From LOW O2 - Diseases - C.A.R.E. (aquariumcoop.com) Primarily… My input here has been little more here than converting the tedious data tables from the patents into more readable graphs. In the beginning of this article and in the “Prime Beefs” section, I mentioned that it takes little effort to find detractors making absolute assertions that the manufacturers are making fraudulent claims. I’ve read that “the test procedures (Hach et al) were flawed”, that “the formulae are wrong”, “the manufacturers are frauds”, even that “the patent examiners were corrupt!”. That was, in part, why I decided to present the documented work of others, rather than add my speculation or enter into speculative discussions. As seen above, many such works have been performed by highly authoritative sources. The detoxification of chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate in varying degrees has been known science for nearly a century. I’ve cited a mere handful from a plethora of findings indicating documented, quantified, successful outcomes from universities, laboratories, and studies around the world as well as US and European patents, in the hope that their powerful evidence for these claims sheds some light on what the end user may feel confident about. -------------------- Part-2 Proving Prime (The Movie) Go Directly to Video: Proving Prime (15-minute video) A fragment of Euclid’s original manuscript proving that Prime Numbers exist. Circa 300 B.C. In the first article, “A Brief History of Prime”, we cited 6 laboratories, 10 universities, 5 awarded patents and 11 aquatic institutions that have published results for using chemicals similar to those in Seachem Prime and other dechlorinators to not only remove chlorine and chloramine, but also to reduce ammonia and nitrites. The amount of 3rd party evidence for these chemicals’ efficacy is simply overwhelming. Despite the volumes of citations in the article, we barely scratched the surface of citing reputable institutions from around the world who have published reports or studies on using these chemicals for ammoniacal detoxification. As they tested it and we did not, nor could we confirm the ingredients, we added little commentary and simply allowed their reputations to speak for themselves. In fact, our sole contribution was to perform a few informal tests for some reinforcement of conclusions on what proposed chemicals may likely be present in Prime. But we asserted nothing about the efficacy it has on reducing ammonia or nitrite as there were too many unknowns. We left that to the cited institutions. PRIME-L Screams There’s few topics in aquatic social media that sparks more vitriol than if dechlorinators and detoxifiers actually remove ammonia. I’ve seen volumes of highly speculative equations, deep corporate mistrust, patent fraud accusations and even assertions of ineptitude or corruption on the part of the chemists who reviewed the patents for Amquel, Tetra, Fritz and others. I have also seen dozens of amateurish, equative 'proofs' to the contrary as well as some poorly executed, ill-performed amateur tests. A balanced equation may be mathematically correct, but this is no indicator that this reaction is not taking place. Nor is a failed test improperly executed. Choosing to ignore literally millions of facilities using this technology for ammonia detoxification for over a century is nothing more than typical, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are borne from attention seeking, uneducated speculation and pollute virtually all walks but serve no one and simply add to the volumes of misinformation. The vitriol against these known chemical reactions taking place in fisheries, laboratories, universities and hundreds of thousands of government facilities for over a century is little more than that. But once again, the above-mentioned fisheries, laboratories, universities and government facilities DID document their results. So, in our not wanting to add to the speculation, we elected to present the verified works of others and simply illustrate the vast history behind how we got here. Not Ready for Prime Time “The Not Ready for Prime Time Players” The original SNL cast in 1975. As we perused the forums to try to understand why people doubted this virtue with such intensity, perhaps this most common recurrent theme appeared: “Testing for ammonia before and after adding Prime indicates no difference”. Considering the above quote and after seeing the chart below, we then realized that the problem is TIME: In the J. Kuhns patent awarded jointly to the inventor and Amquel in 1987, there was a data table from which this interesting chart was created, displaying their findings on how Amquel in this case, affected chloramine. Taking some semantic license for simplicity, chloramine may be somewhat inaccurately yet approximately described as half chlorine and half ammonia. In the chart above, Kuhns showed that Amquel reduced the chlorine portion of chloramine far more quickly than the ammonia portion. In fact, 20X more time was required for the latter. Notice that when Amquel breaks down chloramine into chlorine and ammonia, the chlorine is reduced in about 3 minutes whereas the ammonia portion required over an hour to be reduced. The literal values of time here are unimportant as they are subject to the amounts used, the PPM of ammonia being reduced, the pH and the temperatures. What is of value is relative time. As mentioned above, the ammonia portion of chloramine required 20X the amount of time as chlorine portion did for reduction. What follows is a prelude to a series of tests that were performed to demonstrate Prime removing ammonia and documented on video. This is then followed by a series of tests to verify that the predicted byproducts created when Prime reduced ammonia are present and tests for potential errors in the test themselves, also documented on video. The complete reduction of the ammonia by Prime required 7-hours of footage to be shot. It includes explanatory slides to guide you through the metamorphosis and to highlight changes and errata. It was recorded in real time but was greatly accelerated to view the reaction in its entirety in only 15 minutes. As ammonia and ammonium have vastly different effects on our fish, the first directive here was we needed to isolate the ammonia from the ammonium. Then we could see how Prime affects each individually in both degree and time. This was achieved by creating three solutions of varying pH levels. Three solutions were prepared, one at a pH of 6, another at the default pH of 8 (the natural pH of the water at this facility, used as a Control) and a third at a pH of 11. Prime was administered to two of the three vials below. The vial at a pH of 8 (center) had none, the vials at a pH of 6 (right) and 11 (left) were treated with Prime’s “Emergency Dose” (ED) of 5X the normal dose per 1PPM of desired reduction. All three vials tested positive for 2PPM of ammonia. Prime 5X (ED) removed 100% of the ammonia in about 3 HOURS: For the reason detailed below however, Prime required 7 HOURS to remove the ammonium: The difference in reduction time is that ammonium is less chemically active than ammonia and therefore requires more energy or time to reach the same level of reduction. For either ammonia or ammonium to be reduced, it has to be converted to a more inert compound. As Prime et al are sulfur-based reducing agents, the ammonia and ammonium compounds should create sulfates. In this case, the created sulfates are related to the Ammonium Sulfate family. The vials treated with Prime now test positive for SULFATES: During the three-hour reduction, we observed gas escaping, only from the Prime treated vials: For the sake of simplicity, I’ll take a bit more semantic license here. The reductive reaction taking place here results in the production of various gasses. Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Sulfur Dioxide should be liberated in this process (it can take the form of nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen compounds in gaseous forms as well but again for simplicity, I’ll be referring to these as their parent elements and compound: N, O, H and SO2). It is not unexpected that ammonia or ammonium, being nitrogen/hydrogen compounds would eventually break down into either nitrogen or hydrogen gasses or gaseous compounds composed of nitrogen and hydrogen. Oxygen may be liberated as well, either directly or in the form of water. In “A Brief History of Prime”, we tested Prime for sulfites. The reason being, Seachem’s only reference to their ingredients was “Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts”. We wanted to verify the presence of sulfites (along with sodium and formaldehyde) as these results very strongly suggested the same or similar chemicals were in use as we saw in the Amquel, Fritz and Tetra patents. Wine makers need to test for sulfites during fermentation. However, the same test for sulfites will also detect sulfur dioxide gas (SO2). The gas escaping the vials above tell an important story. If the escaping gas contains sulfur dioxide (SO2), it strongly suggests that a sulfate is decomposing. To that end, by far the most the telling gas if present, would be sulfur dioxide as this directly indicates that Prime has reduced the ammonium sulfate salts it previously tested positive for, into escaping sulfur dioxide (SO2) gasses. The Prime treated vials now test positive for SO2 gas: Our next test for errors in the results was to verify that Prime did not reduce the tests dyes themselves, therefore giving us a false ammonia reduction reading. Here we reapplied the dyes to the ammonia vial to see if ANY ammonia is still present. The results remained negative. No ammonia was present in the Prime reduced ammonia vial: In an effort to be comprehensive, the now ammonia-free vial with freshly added test dyes was verified to be an active, viable ammonia test by simply adding fresh ammonia. It almost immediately tested positive for ammonia: T.A.N. Lines Our final verification test was to simply test Prime’s reduction of the TOTAL ammonia and ammonium as is most commonly done in aquatic ammonia test kits. This is known as Total Ammonia Nitrogen or T.A.N. This was performed to compare and illustrate if the pH adjusted water samples had any influence on the test results. Below are identical vials with 4PPM of ammonia added. The left vial has been treated with Prime 5X (ED)/1PPM. The pH of both was 8. No alteration of any kind to the water was done. The only difference here is the process was performed at +4*F higher than the others. This is because an ammoniacal reduction time changes at a rate of about 20%/*F. In this case, this reduced the reduction time of the ammonium portion from 7 hours to 3 hours. By Hour-3, the T.A.N. was reduced to zero: A Prime Video PROVING PRIME - THE VIDEO Above is live footage of the entire process of Seachem Prime eliminating all ammonia products from the water in real time. You’ll see ammonia and ammonium separately reduced and reduced together as T.A.N. (Total Ammonia Nitrogen), the latter being typical of what most water tests can present. In addition, after the main tests, you’ll see verification footage as we confirm that Prime did not affect the test chemicals themselves but only the ammonia products. A few of the charts in this article also appear in the video for consistency so there’s some redundancy. A total of 7 HOURS of footage has been edited and accelerated so you may watch the experiment in its entirety in just 15 minutes. *** It seems worth noting that not all the manufacturers’ data was in concert with our findings. As it seems relevant, despite being of dubious importance, we added the following after this piece was written… Just for Scale Seachem claims that that the normal dose of Prime will detoxify 1PPM of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. It seems to be approximately linear such that the Emergency Dose (5X) applied to a 4PPM of ammonia sample if quadrupled, eventually tested at 0PPM of ammonia. While we only tested for ammonia, the equations describing the reaction extrapolate to nitrite and nitrate at a similar rate. Said another way, it reduces ammonia, nitrite and nitrate as claimed at a rate of the Standard Dose; 1X per 1PPM. As toxic levels of ammonia and nitrite begin at about 1PPM reaching up to very dangerous levels such as 4 or 5 PPM, the Prime ED dose or 5X Dose/PPM of reduction is highly significant. However, those same calculations describe the same amount of reduction of nitrate. The value of this is a matter of scale. For example, a concerning amount of nitrate may measure 80PPM. Therefore, while a 5PPM reduction of ammonia and nitrite are effectively 100%, a 5PPM reduction of an 80PPM nitrate environment is a mere 6% improvement. In other words, although it is true it reduces nitrates, it’s relatively insignificant. Doesn’t Add Up We found that with our testing and after reviewing the equations in the published patents, the manufacturers claims are not too distant from the real-world reality we measured. The one glaring exception is the claim by Seachem that the detoxification treatment “reverts” in 48 hours. Perhaps I’m missing something. To revisit a previous slide for a moment: We observed gas leaking from the treated ammonia vials. Again, the equations suggest (as well as our samples testing positive for SO2) this gas is predominantly SO2 (sulfur dioxide) but it could also be any, or any combination of nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen or gaseous compounds of those elements. In fact, reversion should be impossible even if the gasses did not escape. The reduction process takes a high energy compound like NH3 and reduces it to a lower energy compound like NH4. To ‘revert, it would require addition energy to be applied. I once tested this in an unsuccessful experiment with high power electrolysis. It was documented here in a somewhat whimsical article: Well, That Didn't Work... But it’s much simpler than this. If these reactions cause ammonia, nitrates and nitrites to release gasses, they are GONE. The chemicals required to revert back to higher energy ammonia in this case have literally broken down and are no longer in the solution. Reversion should be impossible. This was and remains the only glaring conflict in our findings with the manufacturer's claims. While it has little to no bearing on our use of it as intended, we thought we’d highlight the only conflicting data we found with Seachem’s claims in order to be comprehensive. *** I need to thank @Odd Duck for acting as my editor and chief. Her vast knowledge and expertise helped me to find and correct errors as well as editing the document and the video to make it more informative and lucid, and for correcting the video errors. Thank you to @Guppysnail for also reviewing the document and the video for viability. Her input literally initiated the project. And my apologies to @Biotope Biologist for stealing his Amazon Prime joke! Lastly, I’m tagging @boylesdowntothis, our JPL chemist friend for any input he might have on the “reversion” claims made by Seachem. Perhaps he can see if I’m missing something! 🤪 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "GoPro or Go Home" - Debunking Conspiracy Theories As of 2022, according to the FDA, the CDC, the EPA and CISA; In the United States alone, 1,100,000 farms use Sodium Bisulfite to detoxify ammonia before it can enter into water tables. Also in the US, about 200,000 wastewater treatment facilities treat their water with Sodium Bisulfite to detoxify ammonia before it enters into runoffs that could contaminate oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. If the Kitty litter that you use advertises that it "controls ammonia odor", chances are it uses Sodium Bisulfite to accomplish this. This science is far from new. Since its introduction by BASF in 1904, Sodium Bisulfite and its related compounds have been used to detoxify ammonia to protect livestock and aquatic wildlife. Farms, wastewater plants, fish hatcheries, trout raceways, aquatic trade shows and more use this chemical or its chemical family for ammonia detoxification. You can read some of this data through many of the links in the previous section. *** Addenda [1] Sodium Dithionate reduces stable iron to an unstable form. The unstable form is water soluble. It is also bioavailable for plants. This suggests a dose of Prime® will temporarily convert all of the iron in the water volume to bioavailable iron. From a Hach Industries US Patent: Stain and rust removing composition. US3183191A United States Inventor Clifford C Hach Current Assignee Hach Co "…the reaction the sodium hydrosulfite is effective to reduce the insoluble rust (ferric iron oxide) to a lower iron oxide which then reacts with the bisulfite and is changed to the more soluble form of ferrous sulfite. The metabisulfites are similar in action to the bisulfites and have been regarded as the hydrate of bisulfites, and the reaction given above would be the same when a metabisulfite is employed." Download PDF Here: Stain and rust removing composition - Hach Chemical Co, 1965 --------------------- *A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle† James N. Galloway Allison M. Leach Albert Bleeker and Jan Willem Erisman, Published: 05 July 2013https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0120 opyright © 2022 The Royal Society Table 1. Major events in the history of nitrogen. year event refs 10 000–8000 BC domestication of plants and animals began [1,2] 1563 Bernard Palissy advocated for the use of fertilizers [3] 1675 John Evelyn noted that rainwater contained ‘celestial nitre’ [4] 1699 John Woodward proved that what is dissolved in water is essential for plant growth [5] 1772 Daniel Rutherford discovered nitrogen; he receives credit because he published first [6] 1772 Carl Scheele, Henry Cavendish, Joseph Priestley, and others concurrently and independently discovered nitrogen [7] 1774 Joseph Priestley discovered nitrous oxide and ammonia [8] 1785 C. L. Berthollet determined that ammonia is made up of nitrogen and hydrogen [9] 1785 Henry Cavendish discovered HNO3 [10] 1787 William Austin was one of the first to try to synthesize ammonia [11] 1790 Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal officially named nitrogen [7] 1823 Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner produced ammonia using a platinum catalyst [12] 1824 Joseph Fourier was one of the first to describe the greenhouse effect [13] 1836 Jean-Baptiste Boussingault identified nitrogen as a nutrient for plants [7] 1838 Jean-Baptiste Boussingault determined legumes could fix their own nitrogen, but he did not know how [7] 1840 Justus von Liebig advocated the addition of certain nutrients to the soil for plant growth, making him the founder of the artificial fertilizer industry [14] 1843 John Bennet Lawes and Joseph Henry Gilbert confirmed that nitrogen helps plants grow and that nitrogen comes from sources other than precipitation [7] 1845 M. Ducros determined that hail contained nitric acid, and called it ‘pluie acide’ or acid rain [15] 1852 Robert Angus Smith connected the presence of acid rain with human activities [16] 1856 Jules Reiset recognized that decaying matter releases nitrogen, providing the basis for the nitrogen cycle [17] 1877 Theophile Schloesing and Achille Müntz discover the process of nitrification [18,19] 1880 Herman Hellriegel and Hermann Wilfarth discovered the process of biological nitrogen fixation [20] 1886 Ulysse Gayon and Gabriel Dupetit discovered the process of denitrification [17,18] 1896 the greenhouse effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius [21] 1909 Fritz Haber synthesized ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen gas [7,22,23] 1913 Carl Bosch performed Haber's ammonia synthesis on an industrial scale [7] 1947 it was reported that many lakes in the US and Europe were undergoing eutrophication [24] 1950s through the mid-1950s, N additions to coastal ecosystems were incorrectly considered a benefit to productivity [25] 1950s concern about coastal eutrophication was first noted in Moriches Bay, New York [26,27] 1953 Haagen-Smit et al. were some of the first to document ground-level ozone formation and the role of NOx in its formation [28] 1960s there existed 9 reported 'dead zones' in coastal areas [29] 1968 Svante Oden was the first to link NOx emissions from one country (the UK) to freshwater acidification in another country (Sweden) [30] 1970s on a global scale, the rate of Nr creation by the Haber–Bosch process surpassed natural N fixation [31] 1970 Paul Crutzen quantified the role of nitrogen oxides in ozone depletion [32] 1972 Sweden made a presentation to the UN Conference on the Human Environment, which started efforts to better understand acidification [30] 1972 Likens et al. demonstrated that nitric acid formed from fossil fuel combustion leads to acid rain [15,33] 1985 the greenhouse effect was further quantified by Ramanathan et al., including the contributions of N2O [34,35] 1985 stratospheric ozone depletion was discovered by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey [36] 1986 anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidation) was first observed in a Dutch wastewater treatment facility [37] 1989 John Aber et al. demonstrated that excess N deposition to forests not only causes damage to the forest, but it can also make forests a net source of N [38] 2003 the concept of the nitrogen cascade was proposed [31] 2009 Ravishankara et al. discovered that N2O emissions are currently the most important ozone-depleting substance [39] 2011 there are 540 reported dead zones on a global basis [29] The European Nitrogen Assessment provides the first integrated and comprehensive look at N use in Europe ******************************************************************************************************** “Contains Complexed Hydrosulfite Salts” “Contains Complexed Bisulfite Salts” “Contains Complexed Dithionite Salts” The term “complexed” in chemistry means little more here than the Dithionite component of the chemical is attached to a metal. In this case, that metal is Sodium. As mentioned above, Sodium Dithionite was designed by BASF to remove rust stains (iron oxide) from paper. This common rust remover has both Sodium Dithionite and Sodium Metabisulfite The product above is just one of many that employ Sodium Dithionite and/or Sodium Metabisulfite. Sodium Metabisulfite being a slight variant when Sodium Dithionite is dissolved in water, yet both will exist simultaneously in water (aqueous). Both also reduce iron. However, this ability is not exclusive to iron. The ability to dissolve (reduce) rust suggests that Sodium Dithionite should also reduce other metals in the water so long as they are less reactive than Sodium…and almost all metals are. In fact, the EPA lists the following heavy metals as reduced to “non-toxic or less toxic compounds” in wastewater by Sodium Dithionite where concentrations of heavy metals can be at highly toxic levels. Being a far milder case, it would not be an unreasonable extrapolation to conclude the same would be reduced in the aquarium environment: Table 1. Elements and Potential In Situ Precipitates Element Primary Oxidation States in the Environment Potential In Situ Precipitates 1 Antimony +3, +5 Sulfide Arsenic +3, +5 Typically requires co-precipitation 2 Barium +2 Sulfate Boron +3 Typically requires co-precipitation Cadmium +2 Carbonate, phosphate, sulfide Chromium +3, +6 Hydroxide Copper +1, +2 Hydroxide, phosphate, sulfide Iron +2, +3 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide Lead +2 Carbonate, phosphate, sulfide Manganese +2, +3, +4 Oxide, carbonate, sulfide Mercury 0, +1, +2 Sulfide Molybdenum +4, +5, +6 Sulfide Nickel +2 Hydroxide, sulfide Plutonium +4, +6 Oxide, phosphate Selenium -2, 0, +4, +6 Elemental, mixed iron-Se Thallium +1, +3 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide Uranium +4, +6 Oxide, phosphate Vanadium +3, +4, +5 Typically requires co-precipitation Zinc +2 Hydroxide, carbonate, sulfide (Hopefully the formatting is OK!) [40]

I thought this relatively new data was really interesting. The USDA, in conjunction with two independent laboratories in New Zealand and Sweden along with three fisheries on the Snake River in Idaho, performed one of the most comprehensive studies on Oxygen deprivation while medicating fish I've seen. The study is vast (almost 400 pages of data!) and examined hundreds of parameters but in this instance, what seemed to hold potential benefits for an aquarist, a portion of the study was on the effects of adding aeration vs supplemental Oxygen to fish tanks during illness, while being medicated and to offset environmental stressors. The objective was to determine if increasing the dissolved Oxygen would raise the efficacy of medicinal treatments and/or improve mortality, as well as to determine if other stress factors shared similar weight in the efficacy of treatment. * In typical aquariums with some exceptions, 7.5PPM-8.5PPM of Oxygen is considered normal and healthy. In this experiment, they stocked rainbow trout (125g avg. weight) into tanks with three different values of dissolved Oxygen.: -Tanks average dissolved Oxygen concentration was at 7.5PPM. Survival and medicinal treatment efficacy were averaged at 88% in the 7.5PPM tanks. -Tanks average dissolved Oxygen concentration was at 6.5PPM. Survival and medicinal treatment efficacy were averaged at 68% in the 6.5PPM tanks. (A third test was done with Oxygen at only 4.5PPM but I've not included that as that level of Oxygen would not normally be present in a home aquarium). Considering that some medications can drop the tank O2 as low as 6PPM (see chart below), the 20% increase in mortality observed with the 6.5PPM tanks certainly underscores the need to keep the O2 high when using medications! They then administered what they considered ‘maximum aeration’. Survival and medicinal treatment efficacies rose, but to a disappointing amount: -Survival and medicinal treatment efficacy were averaged at 93% in the 7.5PPM tanks. -Survival and medicinal treatment efficacy were averaged at 74% in the 6.5PPM tanks. Notice the fish raised in 6.5PPM & 7.5PPM only benefitted about 5%-6% or so from aeration during treatment. That is, the Oxygen levels were essentially fully normalized once aeration was applied. In fact, O2 levels reached complete normality with simple aeration alone. (Their test was taken over a 120-day period). * As above, in a typical aquarium, just simple aeration will almost fully offset these Oxygen losses from some commonly used medications known to suppress dissolved Oxygen. Charted below are six tanks treated with some common medications most of us have used at the default dosages. The O2 level of this water before adding any chemicals was 8.5PPM: The one exception of the medications I've tested being nitrofurazone. Without aeration, it dropped O2 levels to borderline stressor levels (<=7PPM), but simple aeration raises and maintains it to/at 7.5PPM. However, unlike the other popular meds in the graph, O2 levels drop again as soon as aeration is ceased. Unlike all others in this limited test, nitrofurazone keeps the O2 down for at least 48 hours if not more (I only tested up to 48h). Only water changes rectified this. Notice Seachem Prime’s O2 depletion infamy is quite short lived. In just 15 minutes, most of the O2 has normalized and fully so inside of an hour. However, the Prime 5X ‘emergency dose’ drops O2 to near dangerous levels. So, aeration is imperative. Although aggressive aeration brought the O2 to normal levels, it didn’t affect the outcome of medicative stress, recovery or mortality very much. But they weren’t done with this concept. As aeration proved to assist in treatment recovery of only 5%-6%, the Snake River facility partnered with two university laboratories below to test if super saturation of the tanks with Oxygen (hyper-oxidation) would in fact improve the recovery from disease, improve medication tolerance and reduce mortality. HYPEROXIDATION But what if aquarium Oxygen is raised above saturation? If circa 7.5PPM Oxygen is normal and healthy, what effect if any, does hyper-saturation of the aquarium with Oxygen to say, 9PPM or 10PPM have on sick fish being treated with common medications? It's easy to do, but is it worthwhile? Their findings were surprising and potentially valuable to us. A study done by the Universities of Auckland and Gothenburg cites observances of medicated fish with supplemental Oxygen. It was found that an astounding leap in reduced mortality and medicinal treatment efficacy occurs when the tank is flooded with Oxygen. The tank had its Oxygen levels raised above normal Oxygen levels (circa 7.5PPM) and held to 9PPM-10PPM during treatments. Unlike the 5%-6% improvement in illness treatment with aeration alone, once the O2 was temporarily raised to between 9PPM and 10PPM, the outcomes changed dramatically: -Increased metabolism. -It was observed that a small but significant percentage of severely ill fish that were refusing food, began to ingest small amounts of medicated foods after being hyper-oxidated for 24-48 hours. -Improved ability to endure most common stressors. -Improved a fish's temperature tolerance substantially. On average, hyper-oxidation of the tanks reduced mortality during various medicinal treatments by 38%! It also increased the success rate of treatments by the same amount or greater! (Most of the treatments in these tests were deworming's so unfortunately, no data was presented for antibiotic treatments as these fish are raised for human consumption and the USDA limits antibiotic use. However, some of their tests did in fact include “unapproved” antibiotic treatments but the antibiotics used were not specified). The elephant in the room now would be to examine if raising the tanks O2 to hyper-saturation levels would or even could do any harm. To that end, the next observation should be if in fact there are any adverse observations on hyper-oxidation. They list the following as positive to neutral; -Had no effect on fry or juvenile growth. -Insignificant rise in resting metabolism but quickly returns to normal once ceased. -Substantially increases metabolism under stress.* -Increased aerobic capacity and cardiac performance. -Dramatic improvement in temperature variation tolerance. *I'm speculating here but this observation seems to me that it might prove the most important of all these benefits for weak or stressed fishes, especially while being medicated. * An interesting note here. Well into the study is this most odd finding. I wish they provided more information. The statement below is from the study but offers no explanation so I'm simply quoting it here verbatim: "Hyperoxidation of the tanks significantly assists in penetration and kill-off of anaerobic methane pockets, especially in sand and finer gravels." I wish there was more information provided on that one! * With a simple DIY addition, you can hyper-saturate your tank with Oxygen. It may help fish recover from disease and tolerate medications and has no known adverse effects. A simple, Hydrogen Peroxide degassing rig for removing the O2 from peroxide and delivering it to the tank with zero risk of toxicity is linked below. This simply degasses the O2 out of the peroxide and you pump it into the tank with an airstone. If the amounts of peroxide, the bucket size and air pump are used as listed, it will hyper-oxidate your tank to 9PPM-10PPM for two days: Degassing Peroxide Of course, with techniques such as these, you'll never truly know if it helped! But O2 can't hurt (many thanks to @Colu @Gator @dmurray407 @Guppysnail and @OnlyGenusCaps for their input) and a potential 38% improvement in recovery from illness in their tests may make this or some more sophisticated equivalent of this worth trying, especially if you're experiencing fatalities or recovery is slow or incomplete.

Please Note: I do not have fish with this disease. This is merely research. I have been trying to research Gas Bubble Disease in captive Freshwater fish. What is the likelihood as a hobbiest that this would happen in your aquarium without running high pressure oxygen? Could this be caused by simple sponge filters? If you have have for example: a 40 gallon fish tank and you have two 40 gallon size sponge filters constantly running could this cause enough excess oxygen to cause Gas Bubble Disease? Is it not just about the sponge filters would it also be about water temperature and excess waste? Thanks for helping me better understand this disease. (No, you're not helping me cheat on a homework assignment I haven't been in school for years. This is just what I do. I try to better understand things.)

Hello, just dosed easy green for the first time in my 55gl. I only used 3 pumps out of the recommended 5, and I noticed my fish swimming near the top. I increased the pressure on my air stone and they seem fine now. Just curious if this is normal after dosing fertilizer or if anyone else has noticed this? Maybe it was caused by something else?

Ive bought myself a 3-something gallon hexagon tank for my desk. I've got myself a nano usb airpump and neverclog airstone, and some other things from somewhere online to help complete the tank. Id like to ask whether an airstone's vertical placement in the tank makes much of a difference for dissolved oxygen. I understand that some lesser amount of oxygen will not dissolve as air bubbles will travel less distance if the airstone is near the surface. My feeling is that "I want all the oxygens I can get omnomnom" but my curiosity has me considering how much I can get away with. If the difference is minor, I might be able to get away with a 'low flow' tank. This most likely would be terrible as the water volume grows, but for a 3 gallon even 2 inches under the surface is a large percent. -- Besides curiosity, i have an accidentally rimless tank that i would love to grow duckweed as my tank lid. The guppies would love that too. The airstone being near the surface doesn't transfer as much force to disturb the water outwards. If the water surface moves too much duckweed gets unhappy. The tank is lightly planted with some guppy grass and some clay pellet substrate. Also has a wondershell in there. Thanks for reading. 🙂