Chemical Analysis
Phyto-Feast™ Coral & Clam and Phyto-Feast™ *LIVE* were ordered for me by Rod’s Reef, a local store, (ship date 3/15/05, invoice # 8107). I examined both products and found no difference except that one was denser. After observing no apparent sign of life, I sent both samples to Inovatia Laboratories for chemical analysis. It is very important to note that this is the one and only sample that was ever in my possession or passed through my possession before laboratory analysis. All future samples were purchased by others and delivered to the analytical laboratories through their normal sample check-in programs so a complete chain of custody record would be generated.
Phyto-Feast Analysis April 24, 2005
(Click
here to see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 4.24.05
| Product (Expiration date July 5, 2005) | Methanol |
Ethanol |
Propanol |
Phyto-Feast Coral & Clam Diet™ |
27 ppm |
958 ppm |
18 ppm |
Phyto-Feast *LIVE* Marine Microalgae™ |
n.d. |
387 ppm |
n.d. |
To pursue this further, I instructed Inovatia Laboratories to purchase both products directly from Reed Mariculture and to re-run and confirm the previous results. Dr. Bassem Allam also sent samples he had in his possession from his experiments to Inovatia Laboratories for analysis.
(Click here to
see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 5.4.05
Phyto-Feast Analysis May 5, 2005 (purchased directly by Inovatia
Laboratories)
| Product (Expiration date August 25, 2005) | Methanol |
Ethanol |
Propanol |
Ethyl Maltol |
Phyto-Feast Coral & Clam Diet™ |
115 ppm |
200 ppm |
n.d. |
80 ppm |
PhytoFeast *LIVE* Marine Microalgae™ |
60 ppm |
150 ppm |
n.d. |
70 ppm |
Click
here to see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 5.24.05
Phyto-Feast Analysis May 24, 2005 (purchased by Dr. Allam and shipped
to Inovatia Laboratories)
| Product | Expiration Date |
Methanol |
Ethanol |
Propanol |
Ethyl Maltol |
PhytoFeast *LIVE*™ |
August 24, 2005 |
100 ppm |
150 ppm |
25 ppm |
80 ppm |
Phyto-Feast Coral & Clam™ |
August 26, 2005 |
200 ppm |
300 ppm |
50 ppm |
80 ppm |
“The older containers had a very strong odor of decomposition. The
newer containers had a faint but pleasant odor of caramel candy. The alcohol
regions of the chromatograms of the two sets of samples were different.
The older set contained less than 1 ppm of ethyl maltol. This lack of quantifiable
ethyl maltol may be due to a change in formulation, or to being reacted
with the decomposition products that had resulted in the strong and unpleasant
odor.
Ethyl maltol is somewhat reactive and would, in the presence of enzymes,
be able to react with those compounds that produce the unpleasant amine
and sulfide odors of decomposition. The amines or sulfides would participate
in a substitution reaction with the hydroxyl group of the maltol, forming
a larger molecule. Being larger, the boiling point would be higher than
either of the components that formed it, so it would be less volatile and
therefore less able to escape the solution. As a result, odors would be
suppressed because the molecules that normally would escape and be detected
as an odor would have reacted into something else.
Further, the maltols, including ethyl maltol, are antioxidants. Decomposition of dead plankton would be delayed because certain oxidizers would be captured by the maltol. Ethyl maltol also is the flavor in caramel candy. Normally, it is formed in the candy by cooking the sugar. But, in artificially sweetened caramels, ethyl maltol is added because artificial sweeteners generally do not caramelize. The concentration of ethyl maltol in the newer set of Phyto-Feast products was comparable to that which is normally found in caramel candy. Finally, maltols, although they are sweet and act much like regular sugars, are not revealed by conventional sugar tests because they do not fall into the classification of “reducing sugars” which is the only type the test is able to detect.
So, the alcohols in the Phyto-Feast products would inhibit the activity of bacteria due to their disinfecting capabilities. However, the concentration of alcohols was not exceedingly high, so some yeast and molds could still grow. The ethyl maltol would react with some of the products of decomposition that cause putrid odors. At the same time, it would slow the process of decomposition by trapping some oxidizers. As a side benefit, the ethyl maltol would impart a slight caramel candy smell, masking the odor of decomposition.” (Dr. Rhys Thomas, Inovatia Laboratories)
(Click
here to see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 7.28.05
(Analysis that was distributed at MACNA XVII) Phyto-Feast
analysis July 28, 2005
Product |
Methanol |
Ethanol |
Propanol |
Acetaldehyde |
Ethyl Maltol |
PhytoFeast LIVE™ as-delivered |
n.d. |
250 ppm |
78 ppm |
91 ppm |
13,000 ppm |
PhytoFeast LIVE™ sonicated |
n.d. |
600 ppm |
64 ppm |
96 ppm |
16,000 ppm |
*Estimated analyte concentration (ppm) of analytes in Phyto-Feast
Live™.
“The concentration of ethyl maltol in this Phyto-Feast product was much
greater that that which is normally found in artificially sweetened caramel
candy.” (Dr.Rhys Thomas Inovatia Laboratories)
Ethanol has been shown to be toxic to phytoplankton at a level of 500 ppm within 96 hours.http://www.pesticideinfo.org
(Click here
to see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 9.20.05
Phyto-Feast Analysis September 20, 2005
| Product | Ethanol |
Acetaldehyde |
Ethyl Maltol |
Phyto-Feast Live™ as-delivered |
50 ppm |
65 ppm |
7,900 ppm |
Phyto-Feast Live™ sonicated |
250 ppm |
500 ppm |
12,000 ppm |
Phyto-Feast Live™ intracellular estimate |
3,800 ppm |
8,100 ppm |
75,000 ppm |
“The ethanol and acetaldehyde concentrations increased after sonication. This indicates that their concentrations inside of the cells in the suspension had been higher before sonication. The sonication process causes the cell interiors to be diluted into the water solvent. By comparing the gain in concentrations with the solid content of the product, the concentration of these compounds in the cells can be estimated.
The ethanol may have been produced during the decomposition of dead cells, or may have been a contaminant in the acetaldehyde, or may have been added deliberately.
Aside from its synthetic applications, acetaldehyde is commonly used as a fish and fruit preservative, to prevent mold growth in leather, as a solvent in paint, and to impart a fruity flavor. Acetaldehyde is very similar to formaldehyde, being one carbon atom longer.” (Dr. Rhys Thomas, Inovatia Laboratories)
(Click
Here to see the report) Phyto-Feast analysis 11.17.05
Phyto-Feast Analysis November 17, 2005
| Product | Ethanol |
Acetaldehyde |
Ethyl Maltol |
Phyto-Feast Live™ as-delivered |
80 ppm |
130 ppm |
7,200 ppm |
Phyto-Feast Live™ sonicated |
90 ppm |
310 ppm |
7,500 ppm |
Phyto-Feast Live™ intracellular estimate |
140 ppm |
2,500 ppm |
11,000 ppm |
“The concentration of ethyl maltol in this Phyto-Feast product was much greater than that which is normally found in artificially sweetened caramel candy. Most food products with ethyl maltol have concentrations around 200 ppm, with the exception of chewing gum, which may me as high as 1000 ppm.http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/y0474f/y0474f1x.htm
Several analyses of Phyto-Feast Live ™ have been performed over the last year. Each has been reported separately. The details of each set of experiments may be found in it’s associated report. Essentially, all have been conducted under the same conditions.
Date |
Method |
Ethanol |
Acetaldehyde |
Ethyl Maltol |
November 2005 |
As Delivered |
80ppm |
130ppm |
7,200ppm |
Sonicated |
90ppm |
310ppm |
7,500ppm |
|
Intracellular Estimate |
140ppm |
2,500ppm |
11,00ppm |
|
September 2005 |
As Delivered |
50ppm |
65ppm |
7,900ppm |
Sonicated |
250ppm |
500ppm |
12,000ppm |
|
Intracellular Estimate |
3,800ppm |
8.100ppm |
75,000ppm |
|
July 2005 |
As Delivered |
250ppm |
91ppm |
13,000ppm |
Sonicated |
600ppm |
96ppm |
16,000ppm |
|
Intracellular Estimate |
4,800ppm |
160ppm |
52,000ppm |
|
May 2005 |
As Delivered |
150ppm |
Not analyzed |
80ppm |
April 2005 |
As Delivered |
390ppm |
Not analyzed |
Not analyzed |
The formulation seems to have changed over time. The best comparison may be made between the sonicated samples on different dates, since diffusion through cell membranes is eliminated.
The variations between the relative quantities of acetaldehyde and ethanol, if they are related via a decomposition mechanism, may be indicative of the age and handling of the sample rather than a difference in the initial preparation.
The quantity of ethyl maltol has varied greatly. The first sample in which it was detected had very little, either due to age or dose. Over time, the quantity will decrease as it reacts with sulfides. The latest three values are huge compared to the usual concentrations found in foods.” (Dr. Rhys Thomas, Inovatia Laboratories)
A separate study to test viability had been commissioned through Dr. Bassem Allam of the Marine Sciences research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook.http://somas.stonybrook.edu/~MADL/faculty.html
