So...who uses Excel? (Gluteraldehyde)

Totally agree with @Singularity.I've checked the bottle again and no where does gluteraldehyde come up.
If some one on TASA has tested a sample of Excel in a lab,then he/they can show us what is in the product and at what concentrations.
To ask the manufacturer to show this data is the same as asking Microbe-Lift or Sera or ADA or Prof Dirk to supply us with the formulae of their products and they will never do that.
This thread,in my opinion,started out as speculation and speculating is fine as long as it stays that way or proof is shown to corroborate the speculation.Then it becomes proved fact.
Now we as a forum,I think,has entered a minefield because we levelled some serious accusations at the manufacturer of this product.We are accusing them of selling a product that is not only poisons to fish and aquatic plants but humans as well.Without proof.That can be seen as slander or product defamation,in short the manufacturer of this product can sue this forum or the persons who levelled these accusations.
Any comment by the moderators?@Zoom

 

@Rudi - I tend to agree here, but then again, I have my own opinion of Excel. That opinion is as follows:

I love the stuff. I use it all the time, and I do not feel guilty about using it either. Granted, I do not use it with really sensitive fish species, like the rare Apistos, but I still use it with my Microrasboras, and the Ottos. No harm has come to them, that I can see. They eat normally, they are always active and they all look healthy. I use pressurized Co2, as well as Excel in my tanks. And I know a lot of the top aquascapers in this country do the same. No ill effects.

I do think that, as a Sponsor of this forum, Seachem have a welcome place in this forum, without having to pay sponsorship fees. Most of the sponsors, who are LFS sponsors, stock and sell Seachem Products. So why can't Seachem be welcomed on this forum? I welcome them whole heartedly. Even though I am an ADA based sponsor, I still use Seachem products, and will probably continue to do so.

I think it is common knowledge, across the world, that Excel uses Glueraldehyde as it's active ingredient. I have read this in many online forums.

I still think it is a quality product, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to use it.

 

@Rudi ive also been following this thread and there are lots of other forums with similar discussions,this is not the first and doubt it will be the last,as for the chemical in question not being on the label ,from what ive read Polycycloglutaracetal is what seachem calls gluteraldehyde.

by no means is anyone telling people not to go and buy this particular product ,thats up to the individual,but we are allowed to question whats inside this product and make our own minds up from there.

 

@Rudi,

We are not asking what the formula to the product it. That would simply be stupid. Most products will tell you WHAT is in their product, but not necessarily the formula. The point of this thread is catagorically stated that Gluteradehyde is used as an ingredient in the product. This is not a speculation. This is fact based on truth and fact.

What the arguement is:
Seachem CLAIM that the concentration of gluteradehyde, (which by the way, they call something else) is completely fish safe. My feeling, and is a thought pattern that initially started with Laure's original intention of this thread, and echoed throughout by Dirk is that there seems to be no evidence that Seachem have scientifically proven their claim to it being safe... meaning... has any lab disected a fish that has been exposed to the product and investigated the effects. The challenge put forth to Seachem is to provide such evidence.

We are not disputing the fact that the product works, and is used extensively throughout the world. We are clearly requesting further information into why they chose this chemical, and by what means they determine it to be safe. This is like a debate... the evidence has been brought to the table by those who oppose the product. The evidence is scientifically shown to be detrimental... just go read the links provided in the thread. Now it is time for the proposing team (aka Seachem) to present their case.

We will never all agree on this topic... however the final decision will be left for you, the member to make whether you will use the product or not.

@Sean J
Thank you for your positive attitude towards seachem posting on our site. And your opinions (based as a sponsor) has been noted. However other sponsors have voiced their opinion, and unfortunately, the sponsorship format, rules and regulations would be in favour of Seachem needing to become a sponsor in order to promote their products any further. For purpose of this thread, we have allowed Seachem to post, as we feel it is a constructive debate that needs to be completed.

I do not believe there has been any vicious, vile, or slander slated or imposed on any member or product on this thread, and do not see this treading on any slander or deformation cases. People's opinions have been moderated out of this thread, and we have left the facts on the table.

Rudi, and all members... due to the nature and sensitivity of this thread the comments, opinions and decisions that I have posted on this forum are all made after consultation with the moderating team, and with Rory. Whilst they have remained "silent" on the topic, and all posts, editing and comments are made by myself, they are the combined effort of the entire moderation team.

 

Well, although I appreciate it that Seachem is prepared to participate on this forum, it does not make sense to me at all that people is arguing that Seachem does not have to abide by the rules, namely to become a sponsor, to be allowed to talk about and promote their products.

First of all, the owners of this forum is spending a lot of money on this forum, that is why it functions so extremely well. Upgrades and patches is done on a regular basis and that is what is keeping us as users safe from malware and viruses. We can concentrate on our hobby and do not even have to think about those things, as we know it is being handled. I have yet to find a forum that runs so smoothly with so many features and being so user friendly as TASA. Then there is the hosting and bandwidth costs. Every now and again, we hear how the forum has grown and that bandwidth had to be increased. All that costs money, especially in South Africa, but it does not cost the forum user a cent!

So where does the money come from? From advertising and sponsors. They get value for their money, otherwise they will leave. Why is Seachem prepared to come and talk to us. Simple, it is in their interest. Not because we are the most likeable bunch on the net. There is a big base of potential customers on this forum and by participating, they reach a big segment of their market. Now, no business gets that for free. Normally it is very expensive. Seachem is a huge player in this market and can afford to pay much more than the normal sponsor, as they stand to gain a lot more.

I am not going to suggest to the owners of the forum what to do. That is their prerogative. I just want us users to think what we say in this regard, as it is not in our interest to throw away potential funds that can benefit us and the forum. The way this forum is going, it can only grow. Growing is important to all of us, for obvious reasons. Growing require money. I would hate to log in one morning, just to be confronted by a 404, not found error, because expenses could not be met!

I would also like to implore Seachem to keep this in mind. We use a lot of your product. We are hungry for information and will probably drive you nuts with questions. Just remember, when your customer is talking to you, you are in business. When they stop talking is when you are in trouble. I hope you will give it your favorable consideration to support this forum with both knowledge and financially. It is a small fee to pay to capture a dedicated audience.

 

@TomK, while I completely understand your point, I think that Seachem is not on here to really punt their product. There are 2 threads on this forum in which they are participating at the moment. This one, and the one with regards to the Discus Buffer. They are not promoting their product, they are informing us, the community, on the proper use of the product and defending their product against attack. Whether the attack is founded on fact or not, this is besides the point. They are on here, informing people of the correct use of their product. They are not starting threads to advertize. I see this as 2 completely different points of view, and people, (sponsors too) need to calm down and let them explain what to do with their product.

 

Hi Tom

As the sole "owner" of this forum that decision rests with me. Remember that ultimately this forum is for the benefit of the hobby so I would have Seachem provide information here for the benefit of the hobbyist. Obviously it would benefit them to satisfy the need for scientific proof but they should at least have a chance to defend their product. Should they wish to sponsor and more importantly become actively involved of course that would be great. (and yes,the fee would be very negligible)

 

@Rory, sorry for stepping on your toes. I just wanted to bring balance to the argument and put it in perspective.

@Sean J, that is probably correct, but do not knock an opportunity. They might see the value in experimenting a bit, by sponsoring a forum.

OK, I have said what I want on the topic and will now shut up and leave it to Rory.

 

Seachem have been emailed the necessary sponsorship info so the ball is in their court now

 

@Zoom,thanks buddy.
I just read through all one million pages of the most boring thread ever,until Prof Dirk explained it all.Shot for that.
Conclusion:I should never have gotten involved in this thread.TASA should black list Excel.And I will never use Excel in a aquarium containing fish.

P.S. I will only use it in plant-only aquariums.
Over and out.

 

Im going to get shot down for this but I do think its kind of a joke how we kill our fish on a regular basis with regards to nitrates, temp changes, sudden ph drops, over feeding and so on and so on yet ironically we can sit and discuss for months what has been made to seem as one of the most toxic products with our fishs carrying on happily in the background until yet again they die from a sudden temp drop etc. anyone spot the irony? I have sea sawed back and forth as to whether I should use this product and after reading all the posts as many have said at the end of the day it comes down to you to decide if you happy or not. I stand by the fact that if I can dose for almost a month now with an animal that cant even handle a slight drop in temperature and yet carry on happily in the background with no issues then there is your proof right there.

It boils down to two things. Is that certain ingredient toxic? yes. Is it toxic in the dilution we use it in? Well for me the fish and plants answer that question.

I think sadly a bit of mob mentality has taken over this post.Every one is asking Seachem to scientifically prove their product is not toxic. Well I here by put the task out there for everyone else to prove that their product as a whole (not just the one ingredient ) IS toxic! Then at least this post wont be so one sided and we will have evidence from both sides as to what the product is and isnt.

 

Technically you are correct... BUT the proof is out there... gluteradehyde, in any concentrations or dilutions is toxic. We don't need to prove this. This has been done already.
Just for your information, Gluteradehyde is a strictly controlled substance in South Africa. ANY and EVERY product that contains it, needs to clearly state it, with the precaution on the container as per law. Whilst other country's may be slightly liberal with this ruling, South Africa is not. (Just another thought to @Seachem to think about... you may need to redesign some of your packaging???)

Again I'm not entirely following you... This thread is definitely one sided.. yes. We have provided the case that Excel is toxic. Finished and Kla. This cannot be refuted. If I tell you I have placed 0.1mg of radioactive substance into your coffee this morning... is it not toxic? If I put 0.02mg of radioactive substance into your coffee is it not still toxic. Radio active substance is toxic regardless of strength or dilution. Long exposure to minute dilutions vs quick exposure to higher concentrations? Are they not ultimately the same? This is not like the glass of wine analogy.. over indulgent in wine is deterimentalm, but a glass a night is actually good. If we use the same analogy, I can go on and say DDT, Cocain, Heroin, Asbestos are classified as toxic, buy hey, if I take them in such tiny amounts daily it isn't going to effect me.

Would Excel be non-toxic if it didn't have gluteradehyde in it. Yes.
Would Excel function without gluteradehyde? I dunno. Why would they put it in in the first place? It obviously serves a purpose.

Is Seachem ever going to tell us why they use it, or at what concentrations? I'll most certainly bet no. This is proprietary information.

So can we say, as you @CharlieB indicated, "to prove that their product as a whole (not just the one ingredient ) IS toxic!" is a bit of silly request. That one ingredient MAKES it toxic.

The challenge that was put forward to Seachem was to show us, or explain to us, the testing they did to determine that their dilution quantity is not toxic to fish.That's all.

Mob mentality will ALWAYS come into play when something as controversial as this is brought up. The reason being is some people love the product, and will always use it and defend it, and other people will use something else, and thus won't use it.

 

when does seachems 24hr time limit run out?

 

After 24hrs

 

Bwahahahahahaha

 

ha ha right lol so isnt it up yet?

 

In 4 hours time.

 

they certainly taking it to the wire,but surely this type of information they should have readily available?

 

wow @Rory , how would we ever have figured that one out without you.. hehe

 

Hello to all on this thread. My name is George Batten, and I am the research director for Seachem Laboratories. I understand that a colleague of mine posted an item or two on this site and created a brouhaha of sorts. I also see that his posts and several others have been removed. It is my intention to provide what information I can regarding Flourish Excel. It is not my intention to push the product, nor to reveal everything that is in it. But I have seen some information here that isn’t correct and I will try to correct that.

Of course, one of the ingredients in Flourish Excel is glutaraldehyde, and that particular ingredient seems to be the cause of concern. Perhaps I should begin with why such a product would be used as a carbon source. The general idea behind photosynthesis is that the plant produces sugars from carbon dioxide and water, in the presence of light. Since one molecule of carbon dioxide contains one carbon atom, it is a somewhat involved process to build up to a six carbon sugar. There are reactions that occur in the light and reactions that occur in the dark, and a fair amount of energy is consumed by the plant in the process.

Two of the intermediates in photosynthesis are five carbon compounds: ribulose 1,5-biphosphate, and 2’-carboxy-3-keto-D-arabinitol 1,5 bisphosphate. The five-carbon “frame” of these two compounds is actually very similar to the basic structure of glutaraldehyde. The idea, then, is to introduce a five-carbon structure similar to these two intermediates. If the plant can incorporate this material, then we have saved the plant a good bit of energy, energy that can be used in plant growth.

As to the toxicity of glutaraldehyde, I don’t believe there is any argument that, at some high enough concentration, the material can cause irritation to the eyes, the respiratory tract, and the skin. However Flourish Excel does not employ glutaraldehyde at high concentration; it employs it an extremely low, dilute concentration. In terms of human contact with the product unless you washing your eyes with it or taking a bath in it you will not encounter these effects. In terms of aquatic species contact please bear in mind that the product is already extremely dilute, and that putting it an aquarium further dilutes it. It is formulated to not cause any ill effects to aquatic species and we err on the side of extreme caution – we warn the user to NOT overdose, but even if they did overdose it would STILL be safe in most cases short of dumping an entire bottle in a 10 gallon tank. Obviously selling a product that killed fish would not be a wise business decision.

Personally, I can testify to the fact that the raw material can cause contact dermatitis. Sometime over the past several decades spent in the laboratory, I have acquired a sensitivity to the 50% glutaraldehyde that US chemical suppliers provide. I cannot work around glutaraldehyde without being gloved. But I use Flourish Excel in both my planted tanks three times each week, and I do not use gloves when I dose my tanks. It is quite possible that others may develop a different sensitivity to the product, but my own personal experience with the product is that the concentration is insufficient to trigger my reaction.

I’ve never had the asthma that this and other chemicals may induce, but then I am extremely careful not to inhale fumes as a general rule. A bit of common sense with respect to handling any chemical product, not just Flourish Excel, is in order.

I have read elsewhere on this thread that it is highly toxic and carcinogenic, that it is no different than formaldehyde, and that adding Flourish Excel to a tank is equivalent to adding poison to a tank. These statements are not true. I have never seen glutaraldehyde listed as a carcinogen. I am including a link to a summary of health hazards from exposure to glutaraldehyde. It was produced by a manufacturer, Dow Chemical Company, so you are free to discount it if you wish.
http://msdssearch.dow.com/Published...ides/pdfs/noreg/253-01444.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

The United States has a Federal system of government, which gives each state considerable latitude in setting health, safety, and environmental regulations. At present, the state with the most stringent standards is the state of California. There are chemicals that are banned in the state of California that are not banned in all the other states. Glutaraldehyde is not banned in California. In fact, in affirming that glutaraldehyde is not carcinogenic, I consulted the Carcinogenic Potency Database housed at the University of California – Berkeley, which shows no positive carcinogenicity test for glutaraldehyde.

Glutaraldehyde is significantly different than formaldehyde. Aside from the fact that it is a five carbon dialdehyde while formaldehyde is a one carbon aldehyde, we have the fact that it is not carcinogenic while formaldehyde is. Stating that the two are the same just because both are aldehydes is like stating that ethanol and methanol are the same, just because both are alcohols. (And to be fair, ethanol and methanol are much more similar in structure than glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde.) Yet, one can enjoy a little ethanol with a diluent such as water or fruit juice, and have a pleasant evening. If one enjoys the same quantity of methanol with the same diluent, one goes blind. If one drinks ethanol to excess, one acquires a hangover. If one drinks methanol to excess, one dies. Little differences in molecular structure often make big differences in the way molecules react in living organisms.

Ask anyone in any business, not just ours, and they will tell you that it is much easier to keep a customer than to add a new one. That seems to be a truism of business everywhere. We are not in the habit of selling chemicals that poison tanks: that is not good for repeat business. Thus I will discount the comment that adding Flourish Excel to a tank is like adding poison to a tank. That is a bit of hyperbole that appears not to be well thought through.

My experience has been that the best results in planted tanks are achieved with both carbon dioxide and Flourish Excel, and that the use of either one singly shows superior growth rates to the use of neither. But whether you use both, or one, or neither, I wish you good luck with your tanks. It is a fascinating hobby!