Bellini presented a film developer without health or environmental hazards

[AgX]

According to international (EU) labelling regulations.
And thus needs no safety labels on its packaging. To my understanding this makes this developer unique within the commercial offer.

Strange enough it so far had only been hinted here once, and then it was erroneously described so that this feature did not come to ones mind.


The problem with manufacturers using the term "eco" so far is, that the developers are still harmful to health at least and thus need a respective hazard label.



The Bellini "Ecofilm" developer:

ECOFILM Film Developer - Bellini Foto

Fine-grain, Ecological Developer without hydroquinone. Dilution 1 + 1 with water

www.bellinifoto.it

Its MSDS:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/bellini/BW_D_ECOFILM_SAFETY_DATA_SHEET.pdf

Its ingredient is of aquatic toxicity, and they advise "to avoid pollution into the environment", but it does not need a respective hazard label.


To give you an idea of the labelling of a developer of the "classic" type here an example by Bellini too:
(As you see Bellini are very up front with these hazards.)

EURO HC Film Developer - Bellini Foto

High concentration developer with durability over time. Very fine-grain, contrast balance and high sensitivity. Dilute 1 + 31

www.bellinifoto.it

 

[halfaman]

Bellini only declares borax as relevant ingredient and nothing more, not even a preservant like sodium sulfite that normaly needs to be declared... Really? Nothing relevant to people or eviroment than borax?

MSDS are semi-automatic files that are generated around the declared ingredients and some additional data.

 

[Don_ih]

I think it's just based on one of Gainer's phenidone/vitamin C developers. No sulfite. The amount of phenidone in the the bottle would be insignificant.

 

[AgX]

MSDS are semi-automatic files that are generated around the declared ingredients and some additional data.

Yes:
Geowin SDS

Geowin Srl – La gestione delle Schede di Sicurezza per il settore chimico

www.schededisicurezza.com

But the manufacturer nonetheless is responsible for the correct labelling and the content of the MSDS.

Moreover Bellini explicitely state in their data sheet that it "is free from developing agents that are harmful to the environment and humans".
Which already is quite a statement.
But of course this not necessarily means that it is free of other such agents. But for such still the labelling and MSDS (based on regulations) is applicable.

 

[halfaman]

I think it's just based on one of Gainer's phenidone/vitamin C developers. No sulfite. The amount of phenidone in the the bottle would be insignificant.

Phenidone and derivatives must be declared like Kodak XTOL (0,1-1%) and Adox XT-3 (1-3%) do.

 

[Don_ih]

Phenidone and derivatives must be declared like Kodak XTOL (0,1-1%) and Adox XT-3 (1-3%) do.

Undoubtedly. But what developing agent can be in there that isn't an environmental hazard? Phenidone is the closest to innocuous there is.

 

[AgX]

Phenidone and Dimezone-S as such even need a environmental hazard symbol. But seemingly not when contained in compounds we are discussing (see MSDS of XT-3).


Problem ist that, seen earlier discussions, we surprisingly seem to lack a real expert on MSDS/CLP matters...

 

[Anon Ymous]

Phenidone and derivatives must be declared like Kodak XTOL (0,1-1%) and Adox XT-3 (1-3%) do.

These are powder developers, but Belini's is a liquid one, so the concentration will be much lower. This might affect what needs to be included in the MSDS, but even so I find it rather hard to believe that borates are the only significant thing to report.

 

[Don_ih]

but even so I find it rather hard to believe that borates are the only significant thing to report

That's the mystery. Are there any developing agents that are less toxic than phenidone? There would be so little weight per volume of phenidone in the liquid, it might not need to be listed.

 

[Don_ih]

In this article, from Silvergrain Classics, a one-shot developer has .1 ml of 50g/L phenidone solution in 300ml working developer. 5/1000g phenidone per 300ml. Would that amount need to be listed on an msds?

 

[AgX]

Bellini are a member here, but long time not seen:

BF Photo

www.photrio.com

 

[AgX]

Here a weird example from Freestyle Photographic:

Their Eco Pro Film Developer

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/ecopro_msds/Eco_Pro_Film_Developer_MSDS.pdf

The MSDS for part A list 8 human toxicity warnings, and for this they indicate the appropriate GHS/CLP symbol

BUT they also state an environmental hazard, according to GHS/CLO classes, for which they do NOT indicate the appropriate, prescribed symbol, but none at all.

 

[jnk]

According to international (EU) labelling regulations.
And thus needs no safety labels on its packaging. To my understanding this makes this developer unique within the commercial offer.

Strange enough it so far had only been hinted here once, and then it was erroneously described so that this feature did not come to ones mind.


The problem with manufacturers using the term "eco" so far is, that the developers are still harmful to health at least and thus need a respective hazard label.



The Bellini "Ecofilm" developer:

ECOFILM Film Developer - Bellini Foto

Fine-grain, Ecological Developer without hydroquinone. Dilution 1 + 1 with water

www.bellinifoto.it

Its MSDS:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/bellini/BW_D_ECOFILM_SAFETY_DATA_SHEET.pdf

Its ingredient is of aquatic toxicity, and they advise "to avoid pollution into the environment", but it does not need a respective hazard label.


To give you an idea of the labelling of a developer of the "classic" type here an example by Bellini too:
(As you see Bellini are very up front with these hazards.)

EURO HC Film Developer - Bellini Foto

High concentration developer with durability over time. Very fine-grain, contrast balance and high sensitivity. Dilute 1 + 31

www.bellinifoto.it

i don't believe a word of it. even the most benign of developers like "caffenol" has environmental factors. there is no absolution for photographers

 

[AgX]

As I indicated above this all is due "to regulations". So it is about "classes" and subclasses into which chemicals are ranked concerning the hazards they form.

Of course one can argue on these as such. One can also argue why there are lower classes of hazards that need to be mentioned in the MSDS, but do not need a hazard warning symbol on the packaging.
One may also argue why there are threshold limits for concentrations of environmentally hazardous chemicals in a compound when there are likely gross differences in effluent concentrations of spent baths anyway, literally watering such threshold concentrations.

 

[Eric Rose]

Human breath probably has some albeit small negative environmental impact. How fine do we need to split the hair on all this. Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about the environment.

 

[MattKing]

 

[Eric Rose]

Good one Matt

 

[fs999]

i don't believe a word of it. even the most benign of developers like "caffenol" has environmental factors. there is no absolution for photographers

What for example ? The coffee, the ascorbic acid or the washing soda ?

 

[BF Photo]

The MSDS of chemicals must be generated by a software that draws data from the ECHA (European CHemicals Agency) so, using the newest classification available. On MSDS you can choose to declare all the substances, even if some are not dangerous or under concentration limit or only substances that determine the mixture classification and labelling. In addition there are chemicals factors like the pH limits for which the classification is dangerous by its nature (corrosive or caustic). The liquid form of a mixture or a solution is ever less hazardous than the solid form, due to, who is manipulating substances is not exposed to some specific hazards linked to the solid physical form, like breathing of dust and also the solid form is usually a pure substance with all the most hazardous features of it. Dilution makes the substance less hazardous within given concentration limits, changing its own classification and subsequent labelling. Photographic chemicals are often further diluted for use, so even less dangerous than what you find on the labels. Substances named like ECO Bellini developers are Eco friendly compared to all the substances known and used in developers, this is an evidence of the effort spent by some companies in different fields to make products compatible with the environment and less or non- hazardous for human health. Maybe in the future some classifications will change considering new evidences, this is the aim of the REACH regulation in Europe, study and classify chemicals and find less or non-hazardous alternatives, if possible. Chemicals on fixers and bleaches are part of many fertilizers used on agricolture. Chemicals used in photography are enourmously less dangerous than products used daily for cleaning houses, hydroquinone is massively used in cosmetics and hair dyes in higher concentration than the developers. Many chemicals and derivatives used on Colour Developers of RA4, C41, E6, ECN2 are also on ink and toners and often not in acqueous solution but in high concentrations solvent solution. What I have personally noticed is that users of photographic chemists are rightly sensitive and concerned about the environment and on safeguarding their own health. I remind everyone that it is essential to use gloves and goggles when using chemicals of any kind, it is always advisable to wear a lab coat to preserve the integrity and cleanliness of one's clothing. Always prefer an ECO and nonhazardous product if it provides the desired performance in comparison to others with different characteristics or if you work with children, in schools, for their safety.

 

[Don_ih]

The MSDS of chemicals must be generated by a software that draws data from the ECHA (European CHemicals Agency) so, using the newest classification available. On MSDS you can choose to declare all the substances, even if some are not dangerous or under concentration limit or only substances that determine the mixture classification and labelling. In addition there are chemicals factors like the pH limits for which the classification is dangerous by its nature (corrosive or caustic). The liquid form of a mixture or a solution is ever less hazardous than the solid form, due to, who is manipulating substances is not exposed to some specific hazards linked to the solid physical form, like breathing of dust and also the solid form is usually a pure substance with all the most hazardous features of it. Dilution makes the substance less hazardous within given concentration limits, changing its own classification and subsequent labelling. Photographic chemicals are often further diluted for use, so even less dangerous than what you find on the labels. Substances named like ECO Bellini developers are Eco friendly compared to all the substances known and used in developers, this is an evidence of the effort spent by some companies in different fields to make products compatible with the environment and less or non- hazardous for human health. Maybe in the future some classifications will change considering new evidences, this is the aim of the REACH regulation in Europe, study and classify chemicals and find less or non-hazardous alternatives, if possible. Chemicals on fixers and bleaches are part of many fertilizers used on agricolture. Chemicals used in photography are enourmously less dangerous than products used daily for cleaning houses, hydroquinone is massively used in cosmetics and hair dyes in higher concentration than the developers. Many chemicals and derivatives used on Colour Developers of RA4, C41, E6, ECN2 are also on ink and toners and often not in acqueous solution but in high concentrations solvent solution. What I have personally noticed is that users of photographic chemists are rightly sensitive and concerned about the environment and on safeguarding their own health. I remind everyone that it is essential to use gloves and goggles when using chemicals of any kind, it is always advisable to wear a lab coat to preserve the integrity and cleanliness of one's clothing. Always prefer an ECO and nonhazardous product if it provides the desired performance in comparison to others with different characteristics or if you work with children, in schools, for their safety.

But what are the developing agents in the Ecofilm film developer?

 

[AgX]

Thank you for chiming in!

Some people say that people new to chemical photography are either deterred or tend to overdo safety precautions, by the "modern" labelling, and you are even most up front with such labelling.

I myself started when there were not warnings yet. Nonetheless I was utmost cautious, at least at handling developer concentrate. Nonetheless I got few droplets of Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid on the back of my hand and in spite of washing them off within seconds I got itchy blisters for days. I wished I had respective warnings in advance...

Concerning the environmental effect the respective discussions likely will go on based on the most tiny part of photographic effluence compared to generic houshold effluence with its toxic components.


Can you tell us what made you decide to place the hazard symbols, where applicable, that more visible in contrast to major competitors, who can even put up photos of their bottles with such symbols out of sight?

 

[BF Photo]

Thank you for chiming in!

Some people say that people new to chemical photography are either deterred or tend to overdo safety precautions, by the "modern" labelling, and you are even most up front with such labelling.

I myself started when there were not warnings yet. Nonetheless I was utmost cautious, at least at handling developer concentrate. Nonetheless I got few droplets of Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid on the back of my hand and in spite of washing them off within seconds I got itchy blisters for days. I wished I had respective warnings in advance...

Concerning the environmental effect the respective discussions likely will go on based on the most tiny part of photographic effluence compared to generic houshold effluence with its toxic components.


Can you tell us what made you decide to place the hazard symbols, where applicable, that more visible in contrast to major competitors, who can even put up photos of their bottles with such symbols out of sight?

the labeling of chemicals responds to the globally harmonized GHS system, the affixing of pictograms and minimum sizes are regulated in relation to the size of the label which is in turn related to the volume of the container.
Above certain volumes, so if the label allows, "H" risk phrases describing the specific hazard to which the pictogram refers and "P" precautionary statements, on specific precautions to be used with the substance, must also be included.
Labeling follows strict rules that must be compulsorily followed. Highlighting pictograms means helping users and making them informed.
Concerning formulations and MSDSs these are a tool to indicate the possible degree of danger of a substance, how to handle it, use it, transport it, etc., and give broad indications on the composition; this is to keep the formulation a trade secret. However, the exact formulations are entered for making the MSDS, then the data are made public in percentage ranges.

 

[BF Photo]

But what are the developing agents in the Ecofilm film developer?

Ascorbic Acid and Dimezone

 

[Law251]

Ascorbic Acid and Dimezone

According to Wikipedia: Dimezone, Dimezone S, is a white crystalline powder that is soluble in water and polar solvents. DD-X, HC-110, TMax developer, and PQ Universal developer are a few common film developers that use Dimezone as a developing agent. Dimezone is acutely toxic and an irritant.

So why is this developer promoted as being 'environmentally friendly'? Surely this is completely misleading or is the quantity of dimezone so low as to be irrelevant?

 

[halfaman]

According to Wikipedia: Dimezone, Dimezone S, is a white crystalline powder that is soluble in water and polar solvents. DD-X, HC-110, TMax developer, and PQ Universal developer are a few common film developers that use Dimezone as a developing agent. Dimezone is acutely toxic and an irritant.

So why is this developer promoted as being 'environmentally friendly'? Surely this is completely misleading or is the quantity of dimezone so low as to be irrelevant?

As Paracelsus said: The dose makes the poison. The toxicity of a product is not derived from its ingredients only but also from its concentration. Phenidone and derivatives are used in very small quantites for photographic purposes, a typical formula uses around 0.2 grams per liter.

By the way, the data is relative to the fresh product. A totally exhausted standard metol-hydroquinone developer has very low toxicity in comparison.