# Oxalic Acid and Honey Supers



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

If the honey is not used for human consumption, sure.


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

This is what the label says 


> Do not use when honey supers are in place
> to prevent contamination of marketable
> honey.


https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/091266-00001-20151013.pdf

So if you don't plan to harvest and use the honey for human consumption then it looks like you'd be in compliance with the label.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Note this says marketable honey, Not marketed honey. Any honey that could be extracted and marketed cannot be on the hive at the time of treatment. whether you eventually market it or not. No guarantee you will remain in control of that hive. or that someone else would not eventually extract and market it etc.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> Note this says marketable honey, Not marketed honey. Any honey that could be extracted and marketed cannot be on the hive at the time of treatment. whether you eventually market it or not.


:scratch:

Note that there is honey in the brood nest area also. And that honey _could_ be marketed. If the _mere presence_ of 'marketable' honey makes treating with oxalic acid illegal, then a hive could never be legally treated.

.


----------



## WWW (Feb 6, 2011)

Depends on an individuals standards of what is marketable, I don't consider my broodnest honey a marketable product because I feed syrup at different times of the year when the supers are off the hives and I also treat the broodnest with OA.

I know you emphasized "could" but I don't look at the could as a possibility.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

I would really like to see a study that shows (1) the levels of OA retention in honey after OAV over time and (2) the harmful effects (if any) of human consumption of OA contaminated honey. Larry, if you have anything please link me to it. Thanks.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Take a gander at section "d."

http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel/Rademacher.html


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

snl said:


> Take a gander at section "d."
> 
> http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel/Rademacher.html


So, the EU's official position is that OA is not dangerous for human consumption and therefore declined to establish a Maximum Residue Limit for its use. I take it that in Europe, honey supers are not removed when OAV is performed?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

psm1212 said:


> I take it that in Europe, honey supers are not removed when OAV is performed?


FWIW..........I've heard some do, some don't ............


----------



## poppy1 (Feb 1, 2013)

poppy1 said:


> Can you leave your honey supers on when treating with OA if you are only leaving that honey for the bees and not planning on harvesting? Any advice is appreciated


Well let me add my part 2. I am going to do my first OAV treatment as I have tried T/F for 6 years and have lost 15 out of 26 hives since November and not due to starvation but mite related issues for sure so my issue is most of my hives are 1 deep with 2 shallow supers full of honey and I have bees through all 3 boxes and trying to get everyone into just the deep brood box to treat without contaminating the honey seems next to impossible so I can mark all these honey supers as for bee feed only I guess but any further advice is appreciated


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

You may find that an 'escape board' is useful in clearing bees from honey supers (used in warmer months). More on all kinds of escape boards here:

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/clearerboards.html


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

Seems like common sense to me that if OA can't penetrate capped brood, it can't penetrate capped honey either. One could simply dispose of all cappings and the honey contained therein if so inclined and be perfectly fine. What am I missing?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Or in lieu of an escape board a fume board to drive them down, take off supers (or place barrier) treat, return supers (if taken off) OR take the supers off, blow them out, treat and return supers.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

cervus said:


> One could simply dispose of all cappings and the honey contained therein if so inclined and be perfectly fine. What am I missing?


You're not missing anything. I was thinking (maybe too much) that poppy1 wanted to save the honey / cappings ..

Remember, the EPA says not to treat with honey on......regardless of whether it is capped or not.............


----------



## cervus (May 8, 2016)

snl said:


> You're not missing anything. I was thinking (maybe too much) that poppy1 wanted to save the honey / cappings ..
> 
> Remember, the EPA says not to treat with honey on......regardless of whether it is capped or not.............


I was thinking of just discarding the honey contained in the cappings. The rest should be "pristine" when extracted. But you are absolutely right, the best bet is to follow the label regardless. I wonder if coroplast signs separating the supers from treated brood boxes meets the intent of the EPA regulation as far as "contamination" is concerned? Sometimes it's hard to tell...but that's a whole different story.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

I treated in the Fall with one honey super on each hive, with the intent of never harvesting those supers and allowing the bees to eat it all fall and winter. I have a few frames of honey left from those supers that I will put in brood boxes on splits. So I will not ever extract the honey from those frames.


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

I mark the frames OAV so I know they have been treated. They will go on the supers in the fall after any honey harvest. In the spring, non-OAV exposed frames will go in and I will slide a political sign in to do a treatment. That's the plan anyway.


----------



## Spur9 (Sep 13, 2016)

psm1212 said:


> I treated in the Fall with one honey super on each hive, with the intent of never harvesting those supers and allowing the bees to eat it all fall and winter. So I will not ever extract the honey from those frames.


**** Exactly what I did ****



Fivej said:


> I mark the frames OAV so I know they have been treated. They will go on the supers in the fall after any honey harvest. In the spring, non-OAV exposed frames will go in


**** Exactly what I'll do ****


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2002/04/Bogdanov/Bogdanov.html
gww


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

This says an artical in the american bee journal says it is ok to treat with the supers on.
http://www.rburnshoney.com/archives/629
gww


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

gww said:


> This says an artical in the american bee journal says it is ok to treat with the supers on.
> http://www.rburnshoney.com/archives/629
> gww


Copied from the article you linked to.

Honey supers, if on the colony, have to be removed or blocked ****UPDATE August 25, 2016: Article from American Bee Journal, September 2016, “Keeping Honey Bee Colonies Safe From The Varroa Mite” by Meghan Milbrath, Ph.D., chart on page 989 shows that OA can be used with honey supers on.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I looked at the bee journal and it has a chart and it list things like formic and hops and powder sugar and where it says honey supers on it says yes.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

I am kind of in a dilemma myself:

I treated my bees with OAD last summer/fall (since I got them), but was doing OAD only the bottom (brood) box.
This year in spring, I am planning to do the "switch" to prevent swarming, so the bottom box, where the dribbling happen, will become a super.

I, myself, don't want "extra" ingredient in my honey.
So what is the best to do?


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

I am kind of in a dilemma myself:

I treated my bees with OAD last summer/fall (since I got them), but was doing OAD only the bottom (brood) box.
This year in spring, I am planning to do the "switch" to prevent swarming, so the bottom box, where the dribbling happen, will become a super.

I, myself, don't want "extra" ingredient in my honey.
So what is the best to do?


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Artur
If they are saying there is no residue in the comb and it really doesn't hurt the honey, where is the issue. You really won't have an extra ingrediant.

JMHO
gww

PS if you are rotating the bottom box up it will probly be empty anyway.


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

gww said:


> Artur
> If they are saying there is no residue in the comb and it really doesn't hurt the honey, where is the issue. You really won't have an extra ingrediant.
> 
> JMHO
> ...


gww, I appreciate the response, but I am still a bit skeptical yet.
I agree with that oxalic acid is in rhubarb and some other vegetables, but on the other side oxalic acid is one of the main creators of kidney stone, so ...

On the same note: FDA approves some drugs that are helpful, but in fact most pharmaceutical companies don't test them for 6-10 years. With the short period of time some assumptions can be made, but it's not necessary that those assumptions will have no negative effect after 10 years.

Maybe I am overthinking


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Artur_M said:


> , but I am still a bit skeptical yet.


If you have reservations than you should probably use another product, maybe MAQS.

Oxalic Dribble is really not a good choice for spring treatment anyway. At that time of year there will be a large amount of sealed brood which the Oxalic Acid will not penetrate. Efficacy will be very low with dribble, it will only kill the phoretic mites.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Oxalic acid is found in many vegetables; e.g. spinach, rhubarb, beetroot,tea and cocoa (Holmes and Kennedy,2000). The oxalic acid content in plants is muchhigher than in honey. According to Holmes andKennedy (2000) the oxalic acid content ofhoney from treated colonies is not or onlyslightly increased. Even the highest levelsfound after spring treatment did not exceed thenaturally occurring oxalic acid content ofhoney from various botanical origins. The dailyamount of oxalic acid ingested in a Europeandiet is 70–80 mg and can reach up to 400–600 mg/day in a vegetarian diet (Gay et al.,1984). Poul (2003) estimated the mean dailydietary intake of oxalic acid to be 80 mg/day.An ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 0.89 mg/kgwas suggested; this corresponds to a safe dailyintake of 53.4 mg/day for a 60 kg human. TheUS Environment Protection Agency concludedthat 0.14 mg oxalic acid or oxalate/kg/day overa 24-hour-period represents the allowablehuman exposure from all sources (US EPA,1992).Assuming a daily intake of 20 g honey witha high content of 200 mg oxalic acid/kg honey,the additional consumption of oxalic acid willbe about 0.067 mg/kg b.w. for a 60 kg person(Wibbertman, 2003). The author concludedthat this would not cause a risk to human health.The theoretical oxalic acid intake in honeyfrom either treated or non-treated bee hives isnegligible when compared to the daily intakefrom other sources (Committee for VeterinaryMedicinal Products, 2003


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Mike
From arturs post, I take it he is worried about his last summer treatment making his bottom brood box bad when he rotated it up this spring and then tried to turn it into a honey super.

I may have missunderstood that he was thinking he had already ruined the box cause he previously treated.

Cheers
gww


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> If you have reservations than you should probably use another product, maybe MAQS.
> QUOTE]
> 
> And then you can contaminate your honey with Formic Acid rather than Oxalic Acid. Plus run the risk of killing queens.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Daniel Y said:


> Mike Gillmore said:
> 
> 
> > If you have reservations than you should probably use another product, maybe MAQS.
> ...


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

BadBeeKeeper said:


> I follow the instructions very closely and carefully...


This is the key 

As a new beekeeper and pro-naturalist, I like to have things as nature originally made it.
I am not for drugs - I am for nutritious food, so your body has strong immune system to fight with all the bacterias.

This is the reason I started beekeeping, so I can have unprocessed honey.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Daniel Y said:


> And then you can contaminate your honey with Formic Acid rather than Oxalic Acid. Plus run the risk of killing queens.


If MAQS contaminated the honey with Formic Acid then I doubt treating with supers on would be permitted. If he didn't want to treat for mites I would expect to see questions raised in the TF Forum. 



> 3) Subject: Treating with honey supers on.
> Q) Can I really treat with honey super on? Why does it not flavour the honey?
> A) Formic acid naturally occurs in honey at levels ranging up to over 2,000 parts per million (ppm). The formic acid concentration in hive air during MAQS treatment remains well below 100 ppm, so the levels in the honey do not go outside of naturally occurring levels.


http://www.brushymountainbeefarm.com/downloads/maqsfaqs.pdf


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Thanks for the post Larry. Very interesting.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Artur_M said:


> This is the key
> 
> As a new beekeeper and pro-naturalist, I like to have things as nature originally made it.
> I am not for drugs - I am for nutritious food, so your body has strong immune system to fight with all the bacterias.
> ...


You would be smarter to worry about all the natural toxins in honey rather than the tiny traces of oxalic acid that naturally occur in honey in amounts larger than you put in the hive to control mites. Those essential oils and alkaloids in honey are way more toxic than any carried over oxalic acid. Go look up some LD50s. You probably should also worry about all the natural toxins your own body makes every day in the course of normal metabolism. Things like acetone or methyl ethyl ketone. But, if you are really worried about the non existent carry over of oxalic acid from last years dribble treatment why not throw the frames and box away and start over? That solves your concern. You could save the box by charring the inside with a torch and be sure there is no carry over, but charring is going to make some carcinogens that could get in your honey. Of course your bees are going to be bringing back pesticide residues from local lawn service spraying so why not worry about those too? You can bet your boots there will be some in your honey just like everyone else's honey. And what happens if your bees find a dumpster to raid? Who knows what they will bring back from the dumpster. From time to time we hear stories about red or blue or green honey from such sources.


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

Rick, 

The simple answer is: if you can avoid it, why would you go with it?
Nobody is arguing that there are so much unnecessary ingredients in now days food. The perfect example is restaurant food, which is rich with butter and sugar - the same dish made at home tests as good, but has twice less calories.

So everything has its cost, and it depends how much will it cost to go TF and how much will it cost to have untreated lawns and trees and does it worth to go that path.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

artur
However, if I contaminated the side walk with water and then the water evaperates should I consider the sidewalk as still being contaminated. That is the point you seem to be missing. If there are no stored residues in the comb and the comb is probly empty and the bees re-fill it with honey then you have honey that is how the bees made it. 

If they did a three year test in spaine and the comb after multiple treatments was at the same level as something not treated, It means it is not contaminated. You can't say it is contaminated if it is the same as all the other comb that the bees made that were not treated.
I don't know the sience and am not willing to make the effort to do test on my own and so I relie on others test that "if" I understand what they seem to be saying, oxalic acid treatments do not contaminate the comb. Since it is also in spinach in even higher amounts and popeye seemed to do quite well on spinach and mom always said eat your spinach, it should not be considered contamination in my mind.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Artur_M said:


> Rick,
> 
> The simple answer is: if you can avoid it, why would you go with it?
> Nobody is arguing that there are so much unnecessary ingredients in now days food. The perfect example is restaurant food, which is rich with butter and sugar - the same dish made at home tests as good, but has twice less calories.
> ...


My name is not Rick. It took me less than three minutes to find a scientific paper on the internet that has the following line in it: "Many plants and animals produce oxalic acid, and it is of interest that they share some common pathways of oxalic acid synthesis. "

In simple English this means your own body makes oxalic acid. So, why are you in such a huff over a chemical that is natural in your diet and your own body manufactures? You have an internet connection or you would not be on here. So why not use it and gain some well founded science information rather than wasting other peoples time when you are not going to believe them anyhow and are going to argue with anyone who does not agree with you?


----------



## Groundhwg (Jan 28, 2016)

gww said:


> artur
> However, if I contaminated the side walk with water and then the water evaperates should I consider the sidewalk as still being contaminated. That is the point you seem to be missing. If there are no stored residues in the comb and the comb is probly empty and the bees re-fill it with honey then you have honey that is how the bees made it.
> 
> If they did a three year test in spaine and the comb after multiple treatments was at the same level as something not treated, It means it is not contaminated. You can't say it is contaminated if it is the same as all the other comb that the bees made that were not treated.
> ...


DING DING DING - We have a winner. Well thought out and shared. Thanks.


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

Groundhwg said:


> DING DING DING - We have a winner. Well thought out and shared. Thanks.


BING-BING-BING !!!

Again, maybe I am too skeptical, but there are lots of stories that some drugs are good for you, but there are always side effects.
On top of this you can see lots of lawyers commercials suing some pharmaceutical company because of some drug misusage, and it was "researched" and approved for use, but the actual result appeared after longer time then that drug was tested.

So, in the world of chemistry, as anywhere else, never say never.

Maybe bees are cleaning the comb well, maybe the amount is way low so it makes not much sense to argue about it, but totally eliminate the exposure and later cause is impossible.

More examples: hand sanitizer is cleaning 99.99% of bacterias from your hands - why not 100% ? The toothpaste cleans 99.9% of bacterias from your teeth - why not 100% ??

It is never 100%


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Artur_M said:


> why not 100% ?


Only 2 things are 100% - death and taxes.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

artur


> I am kind of in a dilemma myself:
> 
> I treated my bees with OAD last summer/fall (since I got them), but was doing OAD only the bottom (brood) box.
> This year in spring, I am planning to do the "switch" to prevent swarming, so the bottom box, where the dribbling happen, will become a super.
> ...


I do not mind how cautious you want to live your life if you don't mind me taking a more of the middle of the road route. It does beg to question why you would even ask the question if you already have your mind made up prior to asking it. I don't say this to make you agree with me. You have had some imput on the question you ask. My imput is that it would not hurt to use the brood box as a honey super. Somebody else said throw it away if you don't like it. (If you do throw it my way) I am wondering if you are going to use the top brood box and then just super it. If the bees make honey in the super and you are afraid that they might move some of that honey up from the brood box and taint the super, could you give that to me also. I will take a chance with my health under those conditions rather then waste it. It is not wrong to have standards and also to try for improvement. When you start talking 100% you may have a standard that no one could meet. Your arguement could take you pretty far. What if somebody treated and their hive died and your bees robbed them. It really does not hurt me however you handle what you have. I don't mind. You ask and I tried to help, you have my view, I promoted what I thought was reasonable and you promote what you think is reasonable and in the end everybody can do what they want. Instead of me trying to give you an answer to the question you ask, I will ask you one. What are you going to do about your question now that you have made up your mind? Are you going to put everything in a new box and on new comb and start over?
You set the standard for your self, now what are you going to do. If my post seems harsh, it is not really ment to be. I am curious of how someone who sets the standard for themself that you have set is going to handle what you ask about.
Good luck
gww


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Remember, the bees move resources all throughout their hive as needed. Whatever was in the bottom box was moved to some degree into all the boxes, either by moving stores or simply tracked around by the bees movement. 

If you truly want your hives to be without a doubt in your mind 100% pure, then the only option would be to burn the whole hive and start over. I think it all boils down to how much "possible" contamination or side effects you are willing to accept, vs. "probably" losing the hive eventually to mite pressure without treatments.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

When I see a proclaimed high concern about some micro possible danger while far greater dangers abound, it makes me question what the payoff really is.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I am far more concerned with what impression a new person gets by most comments about OA. I have no problem with a person choosing what they choose. But to spread ignorance because they did not take the time to know something is another thing. Case in point. Getting all worked up about a problem they think might exist until they bring regulation down upon themselves in regard to OA. While at the exact same time using several other chemicals in their hives with not one thought of need for regulation or violation of the same. Powdered sugar, C12H22O11. OA, C₂H₂O₄. Say what they are made up of the same stuff? And OA less of it? But beekeepers will dump powdered sugar in a hive without a seconds thought. but OA oh no what are you trying to do induce cancer in your bees?


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

crofter said:


> When I see a proclaimed high concern about some micro possible danger while far greater dangers abound, it makes me question what the payoff really is.


In the same boat! :thumbsup:

I believe I have heard that there are chemical sources not very well assessed where we do not suppose they are. Detergents that we use to wash the dishes, for example. 

Some balance is indispensable. JMO


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Rem


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Somebody please close this thread!


----------



## Artur_M (Aug 14, 2016)

Will it be fair to summarize this thread this way:
Using OAV and OAD the amount of oxalic acid in the honey will be very low and less damaging to human health as the presence of other unwanted ingredients in the honey brought by bees from several external sources?


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

Artur, I think that some will disagree with your proposed summary of the thread because some will not agree that the amount of OA is damaging to human health. I think most would agree that under normal circumstances a good beekeeper can minimize the amount of "unwanted ingredients" in the honey so that its consumption is safe. I too am a "naturalist" and want to have pure, clean honey for my use. However, realistically this means that although I will do all that I can to minimize unwanted ingredients, I will not be able to eliminate them. You have no idea what is in the honey you buy at the store but you will at least have an idea of what is in yours.
So, to get back to the mechanics of minimizing your exposure to OA: You are in a pretty temperate climate and you can easily run 2 deeps of brood boxes. Why not add some mediums as your honey supers and not do the OAD or OAV on them? As others have pointed out, the bees move honey around so the honey supers would not be 100% protected from OA, but it minimizes it. At least this way you will not be directly adding OA to the honey supers.
J


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm in my sixth decade of eating on this planet.
Spinach is a salad is one fo my favorites -- it's high in oxalic acid content, though.

I enjoy a good cole slaw as well.. it, too is high in oxalic acid.

Peanut butter, pecan pie, beets and ...chocolate all contain oxalic acid, and in forms the human body absorbs.

Now, having eaten a lot of this stuff ever since I was a little boy in the '60's I have no discernable health problems.
When I get a physical, the blood tests are always normal, and no indications of any disease.

Now my sixth decade of eating foods containing oxalic acid, I believe that I speak authoritatively when I say, 
incidental ingestion of oxalic acid in foods does no harm, and judging from what the Beautiful One tells me, are apparently no bad for one's looks, either.

Now, I think I'll go make a peanut butter and honey sandwich for my grandson... oxalic acid and all.


----------



## baybee (Jan 10, 2016)

The question here is not if it is safe to eat spinach or beets. While they say that, on the one hand, it is safe to intake oxalic acid in the amounts naturally occurring in plant food and that normal body metabolism makes oxalic acid too, and, on the other hand, that after a single OAV (and OAD?) no significant raise in the OA levels is seen in the honey (capped or not capped?), the question still is: What about multiple treatments with OAV that are necessary when capped brood is present? And not in the winter but during a nectar flow? Would the honey still be edible after four, or five, or fifteen treatments: OA crystals may not penetrate the cappings during OAV, but might dissolve in uncapped nectar?


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

baby bee
If they did a test for three years in spain and after multiple treatments could see no raise in the level of olixic then it made no differrence doing multiple treatments.

You know you are adding something extra but it does not add up to extra from what the bees normally make.

The only thing that could be said is that you just don't believe the studie, cause if you do believe it, then it is just honey like the bees normally make and so there is no contamination.

So in the end if you don't do the study yourself, then you only have an ideal that makes common sense to you or you relie that the people doing the study and come to the conclution that it does not contaminate the honey.
Cheers
gww


----------



## baybee (Jan 10, 2016)

> If they did a test for three years in spain and after multiple treatments could see no raise in the level of olixic then it made no differrence doing multiple treatments.


Is there a reference to this study in this thread? Would be interesting to know the amounts of OA, the seasons when the study was done, the way OA was delievered, how multiple were treatments. 

Some people here seem to be sure that OAV deposits unhealthy amounts of OA into the honey, hence removing of supers and blocking with political signs. How do they know it? 

I know that one of the federal agencies requires that the supers be removed during the OA treatment and the vaporizers instructions say something like that too. Have they done any tests and what have they shown?


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Baby bee
It was swiss and not spain, My mistake. Post number 20 of this thread gives you enough info to search more.

I believe also that that is was mentioned in this thread somewhere that the federal lableing might be more of a broiler plate type language then based on actual testing and a chart from the American bee journal shows that treating with the supers on is ok (though technically illegal due to the label).

Of course useing it at all, like lots did for decades, was illegal till it was put through the prossess even though in the end it turned out the gov agreed it was ok to use.

You have to make your own mind up on what creedence to put to all this.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Tibbigt (Mar 17, 2017)

I know this is a old post. But I was wondering how long after doing a vaporizer of o/a can I put the supers back on?


----------



## johnmcda (Aug 10, 2015)

15 minutes


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

When I've inspected colonies after OAV treatments the bees usually have most of the "visible" crystals scrubbed off of the comb within 48 hours. No science here, just an observation.


----------

