Is everyone really using TRIACONTANOL incorrectly?

[omera1]

Sorry Omera1 to intercept but your posts made me thinking


So you have a yar with water and triacontanol and nothing else, you used ultrasound and the liquid is milky: You don't have a solution but a suspension or colloid; the former will eventually floculate after some time. Good thing is the high melting point, when it starts creaming the particles won't fuse.
Pure water is somewhat risky when using pure non-ionic detergents (triacontanol may be regarded as such) to obtain stable micelles because of the insufficient zeta potential...
Well, you state <0.3 um particle size which would speak for a colloid... how did you determine that (with a Zetasizer)?
Still, a colloid is not a solution and no matter what, you won't get triacontanol into a real solution without additives.

BTW Beeswax was mentioned by someone and completely ignored; it might provide a slow release formulation (only in soil)?

thanks ornamental,
i made this "formulation" exactly like a method that is patented for triacontanol. i took the half of the mix and let it stand till now, and from what i can see there is no floculation. i know that it is no real solution but the particle size is theoretical much smaller than the ace/poly mixes. the information about the particle size cames from the patent, where they measured the particle size of some formulations (poly20,aceton etc) and compared them with the ultrasonic method. like i said, i have to wait how or if it will work.

 

[FatherEarth]

The beeswax is still broken down with acetone to get it into the dried ready mix state, or so it claims in the patent.... Its a foliar only application. btw

 

[Only Ornamental]

thanks ornamental,
i made this "formulation" exactly like a method that is patented for triacontanol. i took the half of the mix and let it stand till now, and from what i can see there is no floculation. i know that it is no real solution but the particle size is theoretical much smaller than the ace/poly mixes. the information about the particle size cames from the patent, where they measured the particle size of some formulations (poly20,aceton etc) and compared them with the ultrasonic method. like i said, i have to wait how or if it will work.

Good luck with that, sincerely!

Ultrasound is a bit delicate; wattage, time, temperature etc. influence particle size and the more is not always the better/finer.

Judging from your photo (and photos aren't always reflecting the true nature), I'd say you have a suspension with particles of 20 to 200 um diameter (with luck it's an emulsion, i.e. micelles -> this may be regarded as liquid colloid). Finer particles 'usually' are less milky, often clear or at best with some grey-white hues but normally with a weird opalescent effect. Also, a suspension wets a surface like water (it pearls off due its surface tension) whereas an emulsion often has a reduced surface tension (it wets easier, droplets spread and don't pearl). Colloids should behave like water as they contain solid particles. Triacontanol may give something in between an emulsion and a colloid as it is solid at room temperature (colloid) but behaves like a liquid (oil, emulsion) during formation (where it gets hot I assume). Also, the feeling on the skin is different but there I can't tell you who exactly, it's just a feeling... like cream X is more comfortable than cream Y.

If you're in for an experiment:
- Prior to mixing with water, colour your triacontanol with some lipophilic dye (an 'oil' dye wich isn't water miscible); if you have a suspension or a large particle emulsion, the liquid will be coloured accordingly. With very fine particles (< 10-20 um and colloids), the colour won't be visible (or barely) and it looks (nearly) like the unstained one.
- Do you have a laser pointer? Theoretically, the beam through a colloid is well visible whereas not so much in a large particle suspension (fine emulsion also show the light beam). Check THIS out (just a funny reference with pics so you know what I mean).

 

[med-man]

thanks for the great links

dont you think a microwave would ruin any active ingredients in the tria?

i mean, they ruin nutirtion in food and kill plants that are fed microwaved wtaer

med-man

 

[FatherEarth]

Yea no microwave, for anything that enters a living body should be a rule of thumb.

Better yet a law enacted by an Organic Congress for Well Being of the People, by the People.

They really only sell microwaves in America, lol...

 

[shaggyballs]

-

 

[mrrangz]

you can dissolve tria via microwave but its no easier vs stove.

 

[Only Ornamental]

I don't see why microwave should be bad when used on food and alike... unlike cell phones, WiFi and all the other electrosmog... It's just rapid heating and does not destroy more than normal heating when time is adapted.
Triacontanol is a very simple and stable compound and will not loose activity when 'microwaved' in water even for hours.

 

[SRGB]

Hi.

For what it is worth, and as was alluded to in previous posts, one of the original experiments which prompted the researchers to isolate tria initially was, perhaps, the observed results of applying alfalfa `waste` or `meal` used as an `alternative` fertilizer on certain agricultural fields. To the best of our recollections, those researchers were not actually looking for tria, but were testing use of `agricultural waste` or `agricultural by-products` as a fertilizer, or amendment for crops, instead of `traditional fertilizers`.From there, numerous approaches were undertaken to create `stable collidial dispersion`; they key being `stable`. Even within the realm of laboratories, the task still appeared to be challenging.

There might be several different natural compounds from which tria could be derived from, each perhaps having its own set of challenges to reach the `stable collidial dispersions` point. It would probably require laboratory grade tools (microgram particulate, et al.) to accurately measure the derived particle size, and to determine if the application was in fact permeating the specimen.

We should mention, again, that from what we could recollect, the effective rate of tria application was on 1 um/l (1 microgram per 1 liter of water) - applied only once per season - not applied multiple times per season. There was a subsequent paper published describing the potential for a greater amount of tria being applied to virtually render tria ineffective.

A simple approach towards experimenting with tria might be to replicate one of the original experiments the researchers performed (noting that the researchers were not actually studying for or looking for tria when they observed its effects, but rather were simply attempting to utilize local agricultural `waste` products` as an alternative `fertilizer`). That is, for example, amending the substrate (soil, coco coir, soilless mixes, etc.) with a small amount of alfalfa meal (relatively, and comparatively, simple to acquire). Also, perhaps for edification and accurate comparative analysis, to set aside a specimen with everything (media, watering, container size, etc.) without alfalfa meal - as a control.

It might be that tria is - chemically - largely insoluble. Whether the particle be `small` or `large`. As was pointed out above, there might be a difference between suspension of particles and the particles` chemical or physiological ability to permeate the leaves of a specimen, or root `hairs`, for that matter. These were some of the challenges facing the original researchers. They, and other apparently did find novel ways to derive tria in a consistently usable form. There might be several pre-packaged products which contain tria in some form or another, often mixed with other compounds. Trying to create a like solution without laboratory grade utensils - and more importantly, measuring devices, might be a very involved gardening project; though perhaps doable.

We are not certain about what exactly gardeners might be seeking when applying tria, yet whatever the goals, it might be rewarding to have a `control specimen` to compare to whatever form of tria that might be applied to a `test specimen`. If not, how could any gardener actually accurately attribute any observed, or even perceived effects of tria accurately? Especially if part of the experiment might be perhaps sharing results of experiments, which could be replicated by others?

This (The Scientific Method) might be helpful towards formulating an outline which could be replicated once gardeners find novel approaches to creating `stable collidial dispersion` of tria, or simply find that a handful of alfalfa - or even a ground up alfalfa tablet from the local health food store mixed in the media (or even foliar sprayed) demonstrated `xyz characteristics` as compared to the `control specimen`. Without the control specimen, there might not be a baseline from which to draw any reliable conclusion as to the direct effects of tria application.

Best,
/SRGB/

 

[steamer]

We should mention, again, that from what we could recollect, the effective rate of tria application was on 1 um/l (1 microgram per 1 liter of water) - applied only once per season - not applied multiple times per season. There was a subsequent paper published describing the potential for a greater amount of tria being applied to virtually render tria ineffective.
/SRGB/

I have no idea or opinion what is the correct concentration is but doesn't 1ppb completely go against the manufacturers instructions and the studies and experiment outlined in this thread by a simply extraordinary amount? Can they all have just collectively got it totally wrong?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=221235

 

[SRGB]

steamer:

I have no idea or opinion what is the correct concentration is but doesn't 1ppb completely go against the manufacturers instructions and the studies and experiment outlined in this thread by a simply extraordinary amount? Can they all have just collectively got it totally wrong?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=221235

Hi, steamer.

Good thread. Thanks for the link. We are not certain about which data or specific experiments that you you might be referring to. The original thread starter appeared to have performed various experiments and conveyed their results. We might only have been referring to some of the publications of the some of the original researchers; and then only the approximations that we could recollect from those publications.

Please note that we are only posting from recollections; our posts here are not intended to be interpreted as precise data from those publications. It might be beneficial for the experimental gardener to review several publications on the subject matter; from the forums at large, to `manufacturers` documentations, to articles published in the various `peer review` venues.

The below excerpt from the linked thread might have alluded to the topic that we posted about in this thread, relevant to `the effects of tria at different application rates; that is, whether increasing application concentration or application rates might incur a nullifying effect of tria on the specimen. We might not be comprehending the totality of the full article, as it was an excerpt, yet, it may have been within the scope of the apparent importance of measuring how much tria was being applied and the effects of those concentrations. We simply are not certain about this. yet, the original researchers and several subsequent articles apparently considered measurement of micrograms, and maintaining notations on even slight differences between the effect of 1 ug to 1ppm, and other concentrations, to be of importance; perhaps for various reasons.

At #2 (paraphrased) of above linked thread (emphasis added in bold):

Effect of Triacontanol [et al.]
(Papaver Somniferum L.)
N .K. SRIVASTAVA & SRIKANT SHARMA

Plant height, capsule number and weight, -- CO exchange rate, total chlorophyll and fresh and dry weight of the shoot were significantly maximum at 0.01 mg/1 Tria. At the highest concentration (4mg/1) total chlorophyll, CO2 exchange rate and plant height were significantly inhibited.

An experimental gardener might consider such attention to the detail of discreet particles to be relevant; as the comparison of effects at different concentrations or application rates might appear in nearly every article, publication, thread or post written about tria. It might be that even very `small` variations in the amount of tria applied might affect its viability. Again, this is only a post sharing some distant recollections of previous research into the subject matter.

Again, we have not researched this in some occasion. We have only posted relevant to those topics which we have been able to recollect; those topics which we perhaps considered interesting data points published by some of the original researchers. The science may have, and more than likely, has advanced since we last visited the subject; with perhaps more finished products with varying `recommended` rates of application.

We are not certain about `manufacturers` and the recommendations they might print for their products; their might be many products that include tria; from ordinary spray bottles at ordinary hardware stores` garden sections to various mixtures, to the raw material itself mixed by gardeners themselves, to quality `fertilizer` companies.

Perhaps each gardener seeking to perform such experiments might consider some of the examples that the thread starter from the posted link presented. That is, for example, several different sets and a control, to further prospective tentative baselines from which the experimental gardener might proceed.

It might be that different cultivar or specimen might react differently than others, even within the same garden. We posted a link to the scientific method for interested gardeners to perhaps merge the available data sets into their own working outlines, and perhaps proceed with similarly structured data sets; with the ability to read from and compare each with similar notation, media, application types, types of tria used, amount of tria used, results, etc. We are not certain about different cultivars` or specimen` reaction to varying concentrations of tria. The experimental gardener might best be suited to derive those findings at their own garden, with their own cultivar - or, over a wide range of cultivar or specimen at various experimental gardens.

In any event, an interesting topic with a fair amount of technical subject matter potentially involved. Best wishes to all gardeners endeavoring to create their own tria regime.

Kind regards,
/SRGB/

 

[omera1]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17771308

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17771308

Colloidal dispersions of crystalline 1-triacontanol in water, upon foliar application to corn (Zea mays L.) seedlings, resulted in growth increases at femtomole dosages (spray concentrations as low as 1 nanogram per cubic decimeter). The maximum growth increase occurred at 100 nanograms per cubic decimeter; at both higher and lower concentrations lessened growth increase was observed. The dispersions were prepared by sonication, with control of temperature and composition. Selected surfactants, which facilitate the dispersion process, are effective at 1 percent of the 1-triacontanol composition and are nontoxic.

 

[shaggyballs]

-

 

[catalyte]

Green Planet has a products called Massive and Finisher that contain TRIA ....worth looking into if you aren't into making a solution yourself.

(no i don't work for them FFS! )

 

[selektor-1]

Hello
Is the correct medium?
how much can I make water with 100mg


http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/t3777?lang=de&region=CH

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hi s1
That's the TRIA we're talking about . But SigmaAldrich is a bit expensive (you don't need that high purity stuff) and private persons can't order unless you buy via a university or enterprise.

100 mg in 1 liter water would correspond to a concentration of 100 ppm or 228 micromolar. Now it's up to you to calculate the rest because only you know what concentration you want to use .

 

[selektor-1]

I growe on rock wool RFX-1.
How would they dispense.
Safe dosage?
Maximum dosage?
Where would they order it.
I want a powder that is directly soluble in water, have been around?

 

[Only Ornamental]

I growe on rock wool RFX-1.
How would they dispense.
Safe dosage?
Maximum dosage?
Where would they order it.
I want a powder that is directly soluble in water, have been around?

First of all, did you even bother to read this thread???

To your questions:
How would they dispense: Who's 'they'? Dispense? Maybe in a dispensary LoL?
Safe dosage: Yes, triacontanol is a safe substance
Maximum dosage: Maximum for what? For optimal performance of cannabis, read the thread.
Where would they order it: Again, who's 'they'?
I want a powder that is directly soluble in water: Again, read the thread...
have been around: Who, what, where?

 

[selektor-1]

okey thx

 

[shaggyballs]

-