So...who uses Excel? (Gluteraldehyde)

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2005/20050003.pdf

 

That article's some deep scientific stuff . .

 

And we add to the environmental contamination by using this in tanks and flushing it into our water systems!
Glutaraldehyde is used to sterilise surgical instruments so you must know how effective it is (even in just a 2% solution).

 

Thats why i try not to have direct contact with it, and always wash my hands after using it.

 

Hi all

Just some more information on this stuff:

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Cidex-Glutaraldehyde-Withdrawn22jan02.htm

Cidex (Glutaraldehyde) Disinfectant withdrawn over safety fears

BBC News 22jan02

The product is used to disinfect fragile surgical instruments
A commonly used disinfectant in the NHS is to be withdrawn after staff reported skin problems and asthma. Cidex, made by Johnson and Johnson, is to be taken off the UK market on May 1 this year.
Cidex is one of the brand names for Glutaraldehyde, a toxic colourless, oily liquid also available as an aqueous solution. Glutaraldehyde is harmful if inhaled or swallowed and irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. It can also cause severe damage to the skin and eyes.
Exposure limits
Cidex is used by most NHS hospitals to kill viruses on surgical instruments which are too fragile to be heat-treated.
It is used in decontamination units throughout the country and is the most commonly used disinfectant in endoscopy departments.
But the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) raised concerns over the use of the disinfectant after the reports of health problems from staff exposed to it during the decontamination process.
In 1999, the HSE published guidance limiting how much Glutaraldehyde workers should be exposed to.
The chemical hit the headlines 14 months ago when thousands of people were called for medical tests after possible exposure to a faulty batch.
'Good for nurses'
Jon Richards, of the health workers union Unison said the move was good news for nurses' health.
He said: "Too many nurses have been lost to the NHS and many valuable years of experience wasted, because of exposure to glutaraldehyde.
"There is no `safe' level of exposure and no place for it in hospitals today.
"It is well known that it can irritate the skin, eyes, throat and lungs. I am delighted to hear that it will be withdrawn from hospitals."
He said Unison had campaigned for years to get the substance banned.
"We have taken many claims for compensation for nurses who have had their careers needlessly cut short and their lives blighted by asthma and other health problems, through working with glutaraldehyde in operating theatres."
National Toxicology Program TR 490
GLUTARALDEHYDE
CAS No. 111-30-8
Chemical Formula: C5H8O2 Molecular Weight: 100.13
Synonyms: 1,3-Diformylpropane; glutaral; glutardialdehyde; glutaric dialdehyde; 1,5-pentanedial; 1,5-pentanedione; potentiated acid glutaraldehyde
Trade names: Cidex; Sonacide
ABSTRACT
Glutaraldehyde is used in large volume in a variety of industries as a disinfectant, preservative, fixative and cross-linking agent, and as a chemical intermediate in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Glutaraldehyde was nominated by the National Cancer Institute, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for carcinogenicity studies because of potential occupational exposure. Male and female F344/N rats and B6C3F mice were exposed to 1 glutaraldehyde (25% aqueous solution) (approximately 93% pure) by inhalation for 2 years. In vitro genetic toxicology studies were conducted in Salmonella typhimurium, L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells, and cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells; in vivo studies were conducted to measure sex-linked recessive lethal mutations in Drosophila melanogaster, chromosomal aberrations and micronucleated erythrocytes in mouse bone marrow, and micronucleated erythrocytes in mouse peripheral blood. The results of 13-week inhalation studies with glutaraldehyde were reported previously (NTP, 1993).
2-YEAR STUDY IN RATS
Groups of 50 male and 50 female F344/N rats were exposed to 0, 250, 500, or 750 ppb glutaraldehyde vapor by inhalation, 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 104 weeks. Survival of 500 and 750 ppb female rats was less than that of the chamber controls. Mean body weights of all exposed groups of male rats and 500 and 750 ppb female rats were generally less than those of the chamber controls. Some female rats exposed to 750 ppb were thin to emaciated at the time they were killed moribund. Increased incidences of nonneoplastic nasal lesions occurred primarily within the anterior section of the nose in 500 and 750 ppb rats and to a lesser extent in 250 ppb rats. The more significant lesions included hyperplasia and inflammation of the squamous and respiratory epithelia and squamous metaplasia of the respiratory epithelium.
2-YEAR STUDY IN MICE
Groups of 50 male and 50 female B6C3F mice were 1 exposed to 0, 62.5, 125, or 250 ppb glutaraldehyde vapor by inhalation, 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 104 weeks. Survival of exposed mice was similar to that of the chamber controls. Mean body weights of female mice exposed to 250 ppb were generally less than those of the chamber controls throughout the study. Incidences of squamous metaplasia of the respiratory epithelium were increased in 250 ppb males and females and 125 ppb females. Incidences of hyaline degeneration of the respiratory epithelium were increased in all exposed groups of females. The incidence of inflammation of the nose was marginally increased in 250 ppb females.
GENETIC TOXICOLOGY
In genetic toxicity studies, glutaraldehyde was mutagenic with and without S9 metabolic activation in S. typhimurium strains TA100, TA102, and TA104. Glutaraldehyde was mutagenic in mouse L5178Y lymphoma cells in the absence of S9 and induced sister chromatid exchanges in cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S9. No increase in chromosomal aberrations was induced by glutaraldehyde in cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells with or without S9 at one laboratory; at another laboratory, chromosomal aberrations were induced in the absence of S9 only. Glutaraldehyde did not induce sex-linked recessive lethal mutations in germ cells of male D. melanogaster treated as adults by feeding or injection or treated as larvae by feeding. In vivo, glutaraldehyde induced a significant increase in chromosomal aberrations in mouse bone marrow cells 36 hours after a single intraperitoneal injection. In a subset of the 36-hour chromosomal aberrations test, there was a small increase in the number of micronucleated bone marrow polychromatic erythrocytes, which was judged to be equivocal. Additional short-term (3-day) and subchronic (13-week) micronucleus tests in mice, using the intraperitoneal or inhalation routes, respectively, yielded negative results.
CONCLUSIONS
Under the conditions of these 2-year inhalation studies, there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity* of glutaraldehyde in male or female F344/N rats exposed to 250, 500, or 750 ppb. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in male or female B6C3F mice exposed to 62.5, 125, or 250 ppb. 1 Incidences of nonneoplastic lesions of the nose were significantly increased in male and female rats and mice.

 

Is this flourish Excel? That white bottle? Whats bad about it? I saw long chemical names, and just closed that PDF again.

 

Flourish Excel contains glutaraldehyde, so you are adding poison to your tank!

 

ok...poison for myself or for the fishes? And what alternative is there?

 

I have tried the excel for a while now, but have no faith in it. I am still new to planted tanks but the excel doesnt do it for me. Also as far as water changes are concerned, I never drain my tanks into the sewer system. Instead I use the water in my garden, for 2 reasons, I paid for the water so i will not waste it, besides this fish poo water is good for the garden and secondly, for reasons being discussed here and the balck list etc. This is one way that we contaminate our water resources, remember alot of our drains run out into river systems that wash into the sea

 

So far, excel has been working well for me. I also through my water on our garden.

 

@ryanj252 - forget the PDF in the first post; it's probably too scientific. Read my last post.

 

i use Excel and while i find the smell very chemical i like the results i see in my tank. my water from my tanks also goes into the garden cos i think any residual ferts in there will only do good. and its a good alternative for those of us who cant afford a full CO2 system and dont want to go the yeast reactor route

 

I made my own c02 reacto using a 2 liter and 500ml bottle. Works like a charm, I even have a diffuser

 

The more i learn from this site, the more i realize that HighTech setups are inevitably the way to go. Money Making scheme? Discovery did say it would cost the government approximately 880 Billion US Dollars to recreate and mimic mother nature globally, with that amount multiplying each year!

No one said it would be cheap doing the same thing, in your small aquarium.

 

normal CO2? Excel was always an alternative for CO2...

 

You mean excel was the only alternative for CO2? So its either Excel OR a CO2 tank OR DIY CO2.

 

Ryan

Perhaps you don't need CO2 nor Excel where you live in Cape Town with your soft tap water. http://www.apsa.co.za/board/index.php?topic=2152

 

well co2 isnt only for soft water.. its for the plants mainly.. but yes, adding co2 to soft water in ct could be disasterous (spelling).. thats why ppl use ph+ in ct to prevent a ph crash..

 

I have never used Excel for these very reasons.... I'm no real scientist, but do understand some principles.... To me adding chemicals to the water just doesn't seem right, and I would avoid it as mucha s possible bar the likes of Plant Nutrients in the form of DSD, or the de chlorinator... Mainly because they are almost essentials or only contain 'safe' ingredients.

As for throwing your water onto your garden... Thats all great ad all, but that water will still find its way back into the water systems albeit that some of it will get used up by plants in your garden on its way down! The worst case is where you have your own bore hole.... What water you chuck into your garden wil eventually seep down into the water table, only to be drawn up again by your bore hole.

Ultermatly, the only safe way to dispose of such water is either to leave it in some sort of receptical to evaporate away, or to just not use harmful chemicals in it at all.... And its actually probably safer to throw down the toilet than to put on your garden, because the water will get treated before finding its way back into the river systems (theoretically).

Cheers
G!

 

ok....so What NOW!??