Debunking the slimecoat myth
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:10 pm
I was curious where the information about water conditioners with slimecoat or stresscoat being bad for hermies came from, so I dug into it a bit.
From my limited research, it seems to stem from rumors that keep getting passed around fish forums (whether the rumors are true or not is unknown). I tried to research some of the facts in the rumors, and the origins of the rumors, and here's my current findings:
The key rumor is that slime-coat products contain chemical irritants that cause fishes' skin to generate more slime coat. The sub-rumor is that aloe is one of these irritants.
Aloe is not the active ingredient in stress coat, and aloe does not cause skin irritation. Aloe is used to treat skin irritations and rashes, and can purportedly heal damaged tissues. Aloe has "mystical healing powers".
The slime coat enhancer in most conditioners is a natural hydrocolloid that forms an artificial pretective slime coat. The hydrocolloid is probably formed from seaweed extract or some other gelatin. All a hydrocolloid does is increse the viscosity of water, which thickens it and helps it hold moisture longer and attach to fine surfaces.
It is true that when fish's skin is irritated, it creates more slime coat. But this doesn't imply the opposite - that something that creates slime coat must irritate the skin. I've searched on several fish forums, and found lots of people passing on the rumor that stress-coat and other slimecoat protectors release irritants into the water to promote the slime coat, but none of them are backed up by facts (and I don't deny they might not be true, just that I haven't been able to locate any facts so far, just rumors).
On the other hand, I found one post that seems to make a lot more sense here:
http://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/showpos ... ostcount=1
"Polymers such as what is found in Stress Coatâ„¢ can be added to the water to ease stress and temporarily protect areas on the fish where the mucus barrier has been broken. These polymers temporarily bond to exposed tissue to form a protective layer. The protective layer helps the fish maintain osmotic balance as well as protecting the fish from opportunistic pathogens"
Of the ingredients listed on slimecoat packages, none are irritants that I know of. However, it's always possible that there are unlisted ingredients, or my facts are incomplete. I encourage more research and arguments on the subject. The stress-coat package does specifically state that it creates an artificial slime coat, which backs-up my claim that it's the hydrocolloid that adds the slime coat, and that irritants are not used.
I found one reference that claims that most slime-coat products contain PVP, which they claim is an irriant.
However, I can't verify that it's in stress coat or any conditioner, and I looked up PVP (Polyvinylpyrolidone) in material safety, and most references say that it is not a primary irritant, and does not cause skin reactions in normal studies. Rather, in rare cases someone might have a reaction to it, but more along the lines of how in a rare case, someone might have an allergic reaction to latex or peanuts.
PVP-I on the otherhand (i = iodine) might be a mild irritant in animals, but I have no reference that PVP-I would be found in these products.
From my limited research, it seems to stem from rumors that keep getting passed around fish forums (whether the rumors are true or not is unknown). I tried to research some of the facts in the rumors, and the origins of the rumors, and here's my current findings:
The key rumor is that slime-coat products contain chemical irritants that cause fishes' skin to generate more slime coat. The sub-rumor is that aloe is one of these irritants.
Aloe is not the active ingredient in stress coat, and aloe does not cause skin irritation. Aloe is used to treat skin irritations and rashes, and can purportedly heal damaged tissues. Aloe has "mystical healing powers".
The slime coat enhancer in most conditioners is a natural hydrocolloid that forms an artificial pretective slime coat. The hydrocolloid is probably formed from seaweed extract or some other gelatin. All a hydrocolloid does is increse the viscosity of water, which thickens it and helps it hold moisture longer and attach to fine surfaces.
It is true that when fish's skin is irritated, it creates more slime coat. But this doesn't imply the opposite - that something that creates slime coat must irritate the skin. I've searched on several fish forums, and found lots of people passing on the rumor that stress-coat and other slimecoat protectors release irritants into the water to promote the slime coat, but none of them are backed up by facts (and I don't deny they might not be true, just that I haven't been able to locate any facts so far, just rumors).
On the other hand, I found one post that seems to make a lot more sense here:
http://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/showpos ... ostcount=1
"Polymers such as what is found in Stress Coatâ„¢ can be added to the water to ease stress and temporarily protect areas on the fish where the mucus barrier has been broken. These polymers temporarily bond to exposed tissue to form a protective layer. The protective layer helps the fish maintain osmotic balance as well as protecting the fish from opportunistic pathogens"
Of the ingredients listed on slimecoat packages, none are irritants that I know of. However, it's always possible that there are unlisted ingredients, or my facts are incomplete. I encourage more research and arguments on the subject. The stress-coat package does specifically state that it creates an artificial slime coat, which backs-up my claim that it's the hydrocolloid that adds the slime coat, and that irritants are not used.
I found one reference that claims that most slime-coat products contain PVP, which they claim is an irriant.
However, I can't verify that it's in stress coat or any conditioner, and I looked up PVP (Polyvinylpyrolidone) in material safety, and most references say that it is not a primary irritant, and does not cause skin reactions in normal studies. Rather, in rare cases someone might have a reaction to it, but more along the lines of how in a rare case, someone might have an allergic reaction to latex or peanuts.
PVP-I on the otherhand (i = iodine) might be a mild irritant in animals, but I have no reference that PVP-I would be found in these products.