# hygrolon and aquamat question



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

It has been stated on this forum that polycarbonate and polyethylene leech endocrine disruptors and therefore, lexan should never be used. The article quoted discussed the PET in water bottles being a major issue.
So my question is why is everyone ok with using aquamat and hygrolon both of which clearly state they are made from PET. Aquamat goes a step further and states it is made from recycled water bottles.
Both of these products are meant to be constantly wet (leeching conditions) and used on the floor and background of the vivarium where frogs will climb all over the saturated material. 

Why is it ok to use bpa leeching material where frogs have direct contact with it, but not as a cover the frogs never touch? It is stated that bpa leeches from PET at room temperature into the liquid, so I know it isn't an issue of heat from lights.


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

I don't think anybody said its ok. People that choose to use it for tanks inhabited by frogs probably just don't care.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

PET plastics don't necessarily contain bisphenol A. A recycled product is more likely to, a controlled process product may not. 

Bisphenol A leaches out at dramatically increased rates in accordance with high temperatures and ultraviolet radiation. Room temp with no UV exposure from direct sunlight minimizes the amount of leaching that occurs. 
You could ask folios whether their hygrolon contains BPA
Hopefully that info helps you make a decision


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

frogparty said:


> PET plastics don't necessarily contain bisphenol A. A recycled product is more likely to, a controlled process product may not.
> 
> Bisphenol A leaches out at dramatically increased rates in accordance with high temperatures and ultraviolet radiation. Room temp with no UV exposure from direct sunlight minimizes the amount of leaching that occurs.
> You could ask folios whether their hygrolon contains BPA
> Hopefully that info helps you make a decision


Solid info! Thanks


----------



## petitpaume (Apr 10, 2013)

Is there also a half life in the BPA leaching? Would it be safe to assume new products leach readily and older products have leached the majority they contain? Or is it a case that when the product breaks down, more leaches out gradually?


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Actually, several studies have shown that NO pet bottles contain bpa, and the same with polycarbonate bottles unless exposed to harsh detergents.

Furthermore, a german study found that mineral water stored in a glass jar contained endocrine inhibitors when tested following storage but not prior to adding to glass jar. 

I have the report if you want to read it.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

petitpaume, 
Depends on which report you read. One says new, one says worse with age, one says worse with heat, one says room temp, one says worse if harsh chemicals used.....


----------



## folius (Jan 2, 2013)

Unfortunately, I do not have an answer yet on whether the Hygrolon product or, more globally, the entire Dusk Tropic and EcoWeb lines of PET materials contain BPA. I will contact Dusk Tropic and see if this is a known characteristic of the material.



Scott Richardson said:


> It has been stated on this forum that polycarbonate and polyethylene leech endocrine disruptors and therefore, lexan should never be used. The article quoted discussed the PET in water bottles being a major issue.
> So my question is why is everyone ok with using aquamat and hygrolon both of which clearly state they are made from PET. Aquamat goes a step further and states it is made from recycled water bottles.
> Both of these products are meant to be constantly wet (leeching conditions) and used on the floor and background of the vivarium where frogs will climb all over the saturated material.
> 
> Why is it ok to use bpa leeching material where frogs have direct contact with it, but not as a cover the frogs never touch? It is stated that bpa leeches from PET at room temperature into the liquid, so I know it isn't an issue of heat from lights.





frogparty said:


> PET plastics don't necessarily contain bisphenol A. A recycled product is more likely to, a controlled process product may not.
> 
> Bisphenol A leaches out at dramatically increased rates in accordance with high temperatures and ultraviolet radiation. Room temp with no UV exposure from direct sunlight minimizes the amount of leaching that occurs.
> You could ask folios whether their hygrolon contains BPA
> Hopefully that info helps you make a decision


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Folius, I respect that. And I wish you continued success in business. My original point was why is it that everyone bad mouths one product because they read a post on a forum but yet because of the cool newness of another product also a class 7 plastic, it is ok to use. 
You could market petrified shit logs and if people thought they were getting something from the european viv community, you would make a killing. But if it was from here and someone on a forum said hey wait, that is just dried shit, everyone would parrot the op. "awk..dried shit....awk"


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

Scott Richardson said:


> Folius, I respect that. And I wish you continued success in business. My original point was why is it that everyone bad mouths one product because they read a post on a forum but yet because of the cool newness of another product also a class 7 plastic, it is ok to use.
> You could market petrified shit logs and if people thought they were getting something from the european viv community, you would make a killing. But if it was from here and someone on a forum said hey wait, that is just dried shit, everyone would parrot the op. "awk..dried shit....awk"


Well, as it turns out, dried shit is used quite frequently in the field of horticulture. We don't usually have to fertilize our vivs, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of commercially available plants sold for vivs are grown with one form of excrement or another.

If someone sold sterilized manure patties for backgrounds that look good, made moss grow faster, were affordable, and never broke down, I wouldn't let the fact that they were made from poop dissuade me.


----------



## Splash&Dash (Oct 16, 2012)

Scott Richardson said:


> You could market petrified shit logs and if people thought they were getting something from the european viv community, you would make a killing. But if it was from here and someone on a forum said hey wait, that is just dried shit, everyone would parrot the op. "awk..dried shit....awk"


seems a general trend, tbh. But as they say, the grass is always greener


----------



## Epiphile (Nov 12, 2009)

Raptor22 said:


> Well, as it turns out, dried shit is used quite frequently in the field of horticulture. We don't usually have to fertilize our vivs, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of commercially available plants sold for vivs are grown with one form of excrement or another.


Mineral excrement, mostly.


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2009)

I have spoken to the manufacturer of the fabric sold as AquaMat, and they have assured me that there is no BPA in the polyester. BPA is (was) primarily used in polycarbonate manufacture, not polyester.

As a ceramic engineer and scientist, I also find it awfully hard to imagine that a glass container could contribute any "endocrine disrupters", as they are organic, and at the forming temperature of soda-lime glass, there are no organics present.


Ray Barkalow
Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Ray, 
pm me if you want the report. Glass is organic yes. However, the containers are not sealed prior to being filled and capped. There study shows chemicals may have less to do with it than biological substances.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

And I have read 5 different studies. Four of them where conducted feeding rats bpa. Not water from bpa containing bottles, straight up bpa. 100% pure dose of bpa not an amount leeched into water. I would imagine these rats that are poisoned with bpa have more shit wrong with them than just estrogen. 
Feed a rat large doses of aluminum and you will find soda cans are bad. Unless you open your eyes and use your mind and read more than forums and facebook. The top two sources of news accurate or not


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2009)

Actually, glass is 100% INorganic, but I figure that was just a typo.

And I agree with you about considering the sources of info. I cannot tell you how often I hear folks claiming that an "organic" fertilizer is so much better for your orchids than one made from "chemicals".


Ray Barkalow
Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

"Organic" vs "inorganic" fertilizers actually vary quite drastically in their bioavailability. Take miracle gro- very water soluble and rapidly available to plants, so it's drawn up immediately into the plant tissue, and can easily burn plants.
Botanicare, by comparison ( my preference) must be first broken down microbially to be completely available to roots. Thus providing a more controlled uptake into the plant, preventing burning.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Yes, but I believe his point was there is no such thing as chemical fertilizer. Nitrogen-phosphorous-Potassium are not chemicals, they are naturally occuring. I learned many moons ago farmers rotate crops because corn uses nitrogen from the soil and soybeans put it back. And the 3 elements listed above are in organic fertilizer as well. Only problem is commercial fertilizer has like 75% of its weight available as plant nutrients where as compost supplies less than 1%. 
And yes, it was a typo.


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

Just because a chemical is organic or naturally occurring does not change the fact that it is a chemical.

Many of the compounds allowed in "organic" fertilizers are the same chemicals used in synthetic fertilizers, but in order to be "organic" it must be mined from the ground instead of synthesized in a lab.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Raptor22 said:


> Just because a chemical is organic or naturally occurring does not change the fact that it is a chemical.
> 
> Many of the compounds allowed in "organic" fertilizers are the same chemicals used in synthetic fertilizers, but in order to be "organic" it must be mined from the ground instead of synthesized in a lab.


everything is chemical. What are you trying to say? The OMRI requirements for being orgainic are actually a lot more complicated than what youre saying. 


Glass is inert. There are no leachable chemicals in glass. Whether the glass comes to you clean is another story. I would do an acetone wash of all glass ware if youre concerned about it. OR you could sterilize it in a pressure vessel, and at 121+C degrade whatever residue is on your glass prior to use


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorous are elements, not chemicals. The form that they come in in the fertilizer is what differentiates between organic and inorganic


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Ray said:


> Actually, glass is 100% INorganic, but I figure that was just a typo.
> 
> And I agree with you about considering the sources of info. I cannot tell you how often I hear folks claiming that an "organic" fertilizer is so much better for your orchids than one made from "chemicals".
> 
> ...


Glass is actually classifiable as organic, 75% SiO2, Na2O, CaO

Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen from the minor additives. Glass is organic. but Im just splitting hairs now. The amount of carbon in glass is likely EXTREMELY low
heh


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

frogparty said:


> everything is chemical. What are you trying to say? The OMRI requirements for being orgainic are actually a lot more complicated than what youre saying.


That's basically it. Everything is chemical, regardless of whether it is organic or not. The poster above me said that there was "no such thing as chemical fertilizer". I would say there is no such thing as a fertilizer than doesn't contain some sort of chemical compound.

Organic fertilizers have distinct advantages because the bacteria that breaks down organic fertilizers is very good at delivering bioavailable nutrients in the ideal ratios for growth. In medical cannabis, for example, this results in distinctly improved smell and flavor. However, those advantages don't come from "avoiding chemicals" because everything in this world is chemical. You simply avoid synthetically produced chemicals in favor of those that are naturally occurring. 

I hear a lot of people on horticultural forums talk down to synthetic fertilizer users because of their use of "chemicals", like any chemical compound is some big bad wolf waiting to poisin their children. I think a more educated view on chemistry would help reduce these fears.

That's it. I know that you have a lot more knowledge than me on chemistry in general, and don't need me to lecture you on chemistry 101, but that was my point.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

the reason cannabis folks like the organics so much is that theres no accumulation and internal crystallization of chemicals in the plant tissues that affects taste and burnability


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Nitrogen and phosphorus are elements not chemicals. Is oxygen a chemical? How about hydrogen? Sulfur? 

And yes glass is inert, so for inhibitors to show up in mineral water stored in glass it is not a leeching issue as stated


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

frogparty said:


> the reason cannabis folks like the organics so much is that theres no accumulation and internal crystallization of chemicals in the plant tissues that affects taste and burnability


It is true that organic nutrients leave more room for error. However, a properly flushed synthetic crop will have no residual nutrient crystals, and an over fed organic crop can still leave residual nutrients or burn plants.

In my experience, however, there is a real difference in taste and smell. You will get more depth and complexity from an organic crop. This is because no synthetic nutrient regime has the perfect balance of nutrients for every stage of growth unless you can take periodic bioassays and adjust the nutrient balance on a weekly basis. This is not within the reach of hobby growers, so there is inevitably some minor nutrient imbalances. However, the beneficial bacteria and fungi in an organic grow almost always break down the nutrients needed in precisely the correct ratio, in return for a reward of plant sugars. So, while they may grow more slowly, organic crops usually get exactly what they need to develop the best flavor.


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

Scott Richardson said:


> Nitrogen and phosphorus are elements not chemicals. Is oxygen a chemical? How about hydrogen? Sulfur?
> 
> And yes glass is inert, so for inhibitors to show up in mineral water stored in glass it is not a leeching issue as stated


Putting aside any arguments as to whether or not elements count as a chemical, your elements aren't going to be sitting around in elemental form. They will be tied up in molecules. So, your organic fertilizer is still full of chemical compounds all mixed together.


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2009)

frogparty said:


> Glass is actually classifiable as organic


Sorry, fp, but that's absolutely incorrect.

If you're talking "organic" as in "organic-, or inorganic chemistry", organic requires the presence of carbon compounds.

Most commercial soda-lime glasses are formed at temperatures that even if carbonates are used as raw materials, they decompose rapidly, forming carbon dioxide bubbles that are allowed to coalesce and rise to the surface of the glass melt during the "fining" process, so they will not be incorporated in the final product.

Yes, there are organic glasses, but they are indeed carbon-bearing materials that lack a pure crystalline structure, gaining the term "glass" from that feature.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I was just being a smart ass Ray. You're right, any alkanes would rapidly burn in the process


----------

