<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15274162#post15274162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HighlandReefer
OK, I found a thread where Boomer indicated what was in ChemiClean:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...&perpage=25&highlight=chemiclean&pagenumber=2
From this thread:
"2thdeekay
It is Erthyromycin cetyl suflate
A chem grad student had looked at it an thought it was Polyacrylamide with no testing...
That would be Er
ythromycin cetyl su
lfate.
Not exactly what I would consider an even remotely convincing argument. I had the cleaning lady at the local pharmacy look at the stuff, and she disagreed. And then she left the country, presumably to do more testing.
I live in the city where erythromycin was discovered and first isolated 60 years ago, where it was first processed, compounded, and patented, and the only place it was manufactured in this country for a very long time. I many years ago met Dr. Jim McGuire, who led the team that first isolated and identified it, and I am quite well acquainted with one of his surviving original team members. So for kicks I asked my acquaintance about the Boyd's product and gave him a sample to look at. He did explain to me that positively identifying compounds (esters and salts) of erythromycin is a fairly complex, multistep process, but there were certain indicators one could look for, and he had a (much) younger colleague take a look. The verdict was that if the Boyd's product contained any erythromycin compounds, it was in tiny quantities, and would require some elaborate testing (the details of which went at least several feet over my head) to be certain.
So since my head was spinning a little, I left it at that.
If the Boyd's product does in fact not contain Erythromycin
succinate as the company claims, but
does contain a
different ester or salt of erythromycin, then I would consider that willfully deceptive advertising that would warrant an explanation by the company. But knowing what I know now, I would still use the Boyd's product before any other.