Isopropyl alcohol as Vodka
- Thread starter yraveh
- Start date
Butterfly
New member
About this, is alcohol harmless?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
And a disaccharide could'nt be used with benefit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaccharide
No toxicity, more carbon atomes...
Far from isopropyl alcohol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol
Last edited:
xJake
Active member
Don't humans metabolize isopropanol into acetone? Acetone being a chemical that causes kidney failure, blindness, and other undesirable side-effects such as... death with even a small concentration?
I don't know how fish or corals would be affected by its presence, but it definitely has the potential to be much more toxic than ethanol. Are you also considering dosing acetone? or maybe one of the other ketones? They have carbon molecules too, but you wouldn't find me dosing them in my aquarium.
Also, I'm not sure how well it would work in an aquarium full of NaCl when you consider this:
"Unlike ethanol or methanol, isopropanol can be separated from aqueous solutions by adding a salt such as sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, or any of several other inorganic salts.[5] The process is colloquially called salting out, and causes concentrated isopropanol to separate into a distinct layer."
If you're looking for something cheap and/or safer than ethanol then I would use acetic acid (vinegar), or possibly sugar. Both of these are proven methods, and don't run such a high risk of killing everything in the tank.
I don't know how fish or corals would be affected by its presence, but it definitely has the potential to be much more toxic than ethanol. Are you also considering dosing acetone? or maybe one of the other ketones? They have carbon molecules too, but you wouldn't find me dosing them in my aquarium.
Also, I'm not sure how well it would work in an aquarium full of NaCl when you consider this:
"Unlike ethanol or methanol, isopropanol can be separated from aqueous solutions by adding a salt such as sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, or any of several other inorganic salts.[5] The process is colloquially called salting out, and causes concentrated isopropanol to separate into a distinct layer."
If you're looking for something cheap and/or safer than ethanol then I would use acetic acid (vinegar), or possibly sugar. Both of these are proven methods, and don't run such a high risk of killing everything in the tank.
Last edited:
I know sugar can be just as potent as vodka. Vinegar however seems to be rather labile in this regards but it could be from dilution of organic molecules since vinegar is 5% acetic acid.
Bacteria are very different than human cells and what they can metabolize. If it takes a shot of isopropanol to kill a person, would it take a much smaller amount to kill a fish if they also lack the proper ability to breakdown isopropanol?
DesertBandits
New member
The Isopropyl alcohol you buy in the drug store is 'denatured alcohol' meaning there is something mixed into it that makes it toxic for human (or fish) consumption.
xJake
Active member
That's incorrect. "Denatured alcohol" is pure ethanol that has been mixed with isopropanol, or some other poisonous substance, to make it toxic for human consumption. This allows stores to sell it (ethanol) as a cleaning/medical product without having to use the same type of regulations for normal products containing ethanol (e.g. vodka, beer, wine, etc.). Isopropanol is metabolized by the liver into acetone. Acetone causes blindness, paralysis, kidney failure, and death. So, in turn, the isopropanol itself is what makes "denatured alcohol" toxic, and isopropanol itself is directly toxic to humans.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol
By "safer" I was referring to vodka (ethanol) in regards to humans. Primarily I was referring to accidental consumption by children or other animals. As for whether or not fish can metabolize isopropanol, I can't say, but I doubt their ability to do so would differ much from humans; all I know is that I wouldn't try it.
Last edited:
toaster77
New member
I definitely would not dose isopropyl alcohol. as stated above, there is a reason it is used as rubbing alcohol.
Also, isopropanol is a three-carbon, branched alcohol, while ethanol is a two-carbon alcohol. Without going into the nitty-gritty of cellular metabolism, let's just say it's a lot easier and much less toxic for cells to process two-carbon units (such as ethanol, acetic acid {vinegar}) for energy. Ethanol and acetate are rapidly converted to normal intermediates of metabolism by cells. Isopropanol as pointed out, is not, so is much more toxic.
Hope that helps.
Also, isopropanol is a three-carbon, branched alcohol, while ethanol is a two-carbon alcohol. Without going into the nitty-gritty of cellular metabolism, let's just say it's a lot easier and much less toxic for cells to process two-carbon units (such as ethanol, acetic acid {vinegar}) for energy. Ethanol and acetate are rapidly converted to normal intermediates of metabolism by cells. Isopropanol as pointed out, is not, so is much more toxic.
Hope that helps.
2thdeekay
New member
Denatured ethanol we use in the lab is spiked with methanol. Although methanol is poisonous to higher vertebrates, Randy discusses using MeOH in a carbon driven denitrator here. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/chem.htm
In vertebrates, the metabolites of MeOH are formaldehyde & formic acid, which causes retinal damage, cerebral edema, and metabolic acidosis. I think isopropyl would be similarly toxic, but with such small amounts being dosed as a carbon source, MeOH or isopropanol might not be a problem. But to be safe, why not just use ethanol? If your kids ingested it by accident, EtOH (or sucrose) would be much better.
In vertebrates, the metabolites of MeOH are formaldehyde & formic acid, which causes retinal damage, cerebral edema, and metabolic acidosis. I think isopropyl would be similarly toxic, but with such small amounts being dosed as a carbon source, MeOH or isopropanol might not be a problem. But to be safe, why not just use ethanol? If your kids ingested it by accident, EtOH (or sucrose) would be much better.
2thdeekay
New member
As an aside--based on molecular wt, EtOH contains ~52% carbon, & table sugar (sucrose) contains ~42% carbon. Given that 80 proof vodka contains 40% EtOH (is it v/v?), & density of EtOH is 0.789g/ml, then
400ml EtOH/L 80 proof vodka x 0.789 g/ml x 0.5214 g carbon/g EtOH = 164.55g carbon/Liter
1 ml 80 proof vodka would contain ~165 mg carbon, so 1 tsp (5ml) 80 proof vodka would contain ~825mg carbon
Sucrose has ~421mg carbon/g, & assuming 1 tsp sucrose = ~5g, then 1 tsp sucrose should contain ~2105mg carbon (I didn't weigh 1 tsp sugar, just a guess)
Then, 1 tsp sucrose would have the same amt of carbon as ~2.5 tsp 80 proof vodka.
400ml EtOH/L 80 proof vodka x 0.789 g/ml x 0.5214 g carbon/g EtOH = 164.55g carbon/Liter
1 ml 80 proof vodka would contain ~165 mg carbon, so 1 tsp (5ml) 80 proof vodka would contain ~825mg carbon
Sucrose has ~421mg carbon/g, & assuming 1 tsp sucrose = ~5g, then 1 tsp sucrose should contain ~2105mg carbon (I didn't weigh 1 tsp sugar, just a guess)
Then, 1 tsp sucrose would have the same amt of carbon as ~2.5 tsp 80 proof vodka.
2thdeekay
New member
You're welcome.
Just found a listing for granulated sugar having a density of 849 kg/cu. m. That would be 0.849 g/ml, or 1 tsp sucrose = ~4.25 g.
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm
So, 1 tsp sucrose would have the same amt of carbon as ~2.17 tsp 80 proof vodka.
Just found a listing for granulated sugar having a density of 849 kg/cu. m. That would be 0.849 g/ml, or 1 tsp sucrose = ~4.25 g.
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm
So, 1 tsp sucrose would have the same amt of carbon as ~2.17 tsp 80 proof vodka.
toaster77
New member
However, keep in mind that certain species of bacteria might fluorish better under ethanol vs. sucrose as carbon sources, or vice versa. So although this is a useful estimate, it may not be as simple as comparing carbon content. For example, my initial hunch is that sucrose is going to be consumed more easily by a wider variety of organisms in the tank, so it's efficacy in promoting desirable bacteria growth may not be as high. I will try to look into this more as to what carbon sources desirable species of marine bacteria might prefer, if any.
HighlandReefer
Team RC
The best article I've read so far is by Eric Borneman, "The Food of Reefs, Part 5: Bacteria".
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/eb/index.php
The article does not specifically mention carbon sources as food for the bacteria, but does present some insight about corals actually farming specific bacteria for their needs. Because the corals actually farm bacteria, he states that it may not be a good idea to dip corals.
This article leads me to believe that it may not matter which carbon source you use, since I would assume that the farmed bacteria could utilize the common carbon sources used.
I read about hobbyists who dip their corals all the time, which makes me wonder.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/eb/index.php
The article does not specifically mention carbon sources as food for the bacteria, but does present some insight about corals actually farming specific bacteria for their needs. Because the corals actually farm bacteria, he states that it may not be a good idea to dip corals.
This article leads me to believe that it may not matter which carbon source you use, since I would assume that the farmed bacteria could utilize the common carbon sources used.
I read about hobbyists who dip their corals all the time, which makes me wonder.
Last edited:
xJake
Active member
I've heard novel accounts of such occurrences, but I haven't seen any reputable data to back-up such claims. Obviously, when total diversity is taken into consideration, it can't be as simple as comparing carbon content, but for the purposes of increasing bacterial NO3 and PO4 consumption, comparing carbon content, IMO, makes for a fairly accurate measurement of effectiveness. It would take a lot of data and scrupulous research to determine how effective each carbon source is when compared to others, so for now a measurement of carbon content is the most accurate measurement we have. Also, it's a true measurement that is not based on inaccuracies - including novel reports and speculation from arbitrary experience. If you have some research data on the subject then please point me to it - I would be very interested to read it.
Similar threads
