Borax purity grade

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

Kirk Keyes said:
That's the requirement to meet the specifications for ACS Reagent Grade, just as I plainly stated above.

You didn't answer my question. Never mind, I think I did. As you see, the batch that Mick Fagan got does not meet your spec for insoluble material, even though it is claimed to be Analytical Reagent grade. If that's good enough, then 20 Mule Team Borax is good enough. We usually accept the technical grade for photographic chemicals. Put your Adobe reader to work and search among the PDF files at www.borax.com for borax decahydrate Product Profile.

You may not have known that borax decahydrate is about 10 times more soluble in either glycerol or ethylene glycol than in water.

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2007

Patrick;

0.001 grams in 20 is 0.005 grams in 100 grams.

0.005% is the specification. I think it does meet the spec. Please check your math!

That level of solids would be invisible and would pose no problem photographically in most cases except for ultra small format films perhaps.

PE

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Patrick;

0.001 grams in 20 is 0.005 grams in 100 grams.

0.005% is the specification. I think it does meet the spec. Please check your math!

That level of solids would be invisible and would pose no problem photographically in most cases except for ultra small format films perhaps.

PE

No comment on the fact that 20 Mule Team Borax is rated Technical grade? Both the manufacturer and the MSDS claim it to be more than 99% borax decahydrate. That puts it with the analytical reagent grade for borax content. Most of the uses to which it is put are at least as stringent as photographic use for the allowable contents of the remaining fraction of 1%. Tell me again why I should not use 20 Mule Team Borax in D-76 or the like. I know that there is no chlorine or phosphate. I do not know the amount that is insoluble, but I do know I have never seen any in my solutions.

I have a question about the test for insoluble contents. You know very well it is beyond the capability of most APUGers. The water used must have no mineral content whatever, and also no organic content, which might include bacteria or such that can be found in some of what we buy as distilled water. The lab equipment that is described is not usually found in our darkrooms. Ordinary, or even extraordinary, filter paper is apparently not sufficient. However, if you have the necessary equipment, you could do that test on a cheap sample of 20 Mule Team Borax. Are you afraid you will not find the expected insoluble material, or maybe that you will encounter some mule excrement?

jim appleyard · Dec 11, 2007

Mule excrement!? I always knew that would make a good film dev!

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2007

Patrick;

That extra 1% could be very finely ground sand, crushed up in the processing of the raw Borax. IDK and I really don't care! If it is though, I assure you that I don't want it in my film developer. You can go for years with no problems and then have a gotcha. I prefer to avoid that.

You are an aeronautical engineer. I am a chemist and photographic engineer. I've seen a number of amateurs build powered aircraft, and I recently watched one of them on tv have a crash. He survived, but the point is that he had many flights that went well but he was an amateur.

I am not any better than he was. I can build paper airplaines for my grandkids, but OTOH my ability in the darkroom or a chemical laboratory is as a professional. So, I'm trying to present good professional advice here for people to get good professional and repeatable results with their processing. Your advice will work, but is on the knife edge of potential failure just like the airplane I mention above. You can fly for years, and then one batch will mess up.

The worst part is that you might not see it until you make a print, or, with bad eyesight someone else might have to point it out to you.

So, what you say will work, but maybe not all of the time. Surely I have shown elsewhere how using volumetric measurements vs weight for some solids can cause an error of up to 20%. I am trying to develop good laboratory habits and good knowledge amongst those who follow. When all of the analog Photo Engineers are gone, I truly don't want people in the lab doing real professional quality work to try to follow the methodologies you espouse. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is the truth.

Remember next time that you want to argue this that you dropped out of chemistry!

I'll have fun anytime helping with using household products for developers as a lark. To me it is like building paper airplanes would be to you. But, I would never ever try to do that for serious work. And, another factor is this. If everyone used store bought borax, then what would happen to legitimate suppliers of genuine Photo Grade chemicals.

I apologize for the rather strong tone of this post Patrick. Your work and reputation stand, but not for truly serious work IMO and I hope that the people reading this understand my POV.

PE

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

So your point of view is that I have not learned anything out of college about chemistry. Does that come from personal experience? I cannot imagine that you worked for years in a Kodak research lab and did not learn anything you did not know when you started. I learned more about aeronautical engineering after I started at NACA than I did at WVU and I went on to make original contributions. What I learned in College was how to learn.

That said, why do you think that a product intended for so many uses, including eyedrops, face and hand creams...tell the truth: you have not bothered to look up all the recommended and actual uses of 20 Mule Team borax, have you? Almost any one of these personal care uses would detect the sort of things that would keep it from being useful in photography.

I contend you do not know the true, or at least the traditional meaning of the word "engineer". I have tested the requirements for accuracy of all the developers and other solutions where I have used volumetric measurements of solids, and have proposed methods for making them consistent. I have used them in cases of "put up or get out" and have many autographed photos of great artists of the music and dance world to show that I put up, in action, not posed situations.

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

BTW, you really should study the process by which the purified borax is extracted from the raw before you go commenting on what you think it is. That is, if you really are an engineer.

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
So your point of view is that I have not learned anything out of college about chemistry. Does that come from personal experience? I cannot imagine that you worked for years in a Kodak research lab and did not learn anything you did not know when you started. I learned more about aeronautical engineering after I started at NACA than I did at WVU and I went on to make original contributions. What I learned in College was how to learn.

That said, why do you think that a product intended for so many uses, including eyedrops, face and hand creams...tell the truth: you have not bothered to look up all the recommended and actual uses of 20 Mule Team borax, have you? Almost any one of these personal care uses would detect the sort of things that would keep it from being useful in photography.

I contend you do not know the true, or at least the traditional meaning of the word "engineer". I have tested the requirements for accuracy of all the developers and other solutions where I have used volumetric measurements of solids, and have proposed methods for making them consistent. I have used them in cases of "put up or get out" and have many autographed photos of great artists of the music and dance world to show that I put up, in action, not posed situations.

Patrick;

You have missed the point entirely.

I learned chemistry in college and learned how to learn, then I spent 32 years or more doing quantitative lab work on photography becoming a photographic engineer.

You learned engineering in college and learned how to learn, then spent X years doing aeronautical engineering. But, you did not spend that time doing photographic engineering or chemistry as a profession!

My background does not qualify me to design airplanes even though I know the theory of their operation. So, any advice I give in this regard would be less authoritative than yours.

My comments here are given in the sense that I'm trying to "teach" things to be done in the right way and point out the potential pitfalls and I think so is Kirk. You appear to be dismissing our advice, which is based on our years of experience, as being unnessesary and essentially trivializing it.

The comment that I don't know about the uses of borax is rather gratuitous.

We kept eye cups with borax solution in all labs in case of splashes of some bad chemicals to the eyes. That was discontinued and the cups were replaced with eye wash stations.

I also know that borax is toxic to citrus fruit trees, and that it is used as a poison for cockroaches. You forgot those two. Most importantly, it is very toxic to children and ingestion of even a small amount can be fatal. Therefore the roach tablets have to be carefully placed in a 'roach motel' type container.

So, those using borax salts for any reason should make sure that they are well out of the reach of children.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
The tea wore off suddenly about the time the exam began and I don't remember anything until the assistant woke me when time was up.

Pat - why do you keep reminding us about failing your chemistry exam? It's not a good way to support your side of the arguement!

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
I have a question about the test for insoluble contents. You know very well it is beyond the capability of most APUGers. The water used must have no mineral content whatever, and also no organic content, which might include bacteria or such that can be found in some of what we buy as distilled water. The lab equipment that is described is not usually found in our darkrooms. Ordinary, or even extraordinary, filter paper is apparently not sufficient. However, if you have the necessary equipment, you could do that test on a cheap sample of 20 Mule Team Borax. Are you afraid you will not find the expected insoluble material, or maybe that you will encounter some mule excrement?

You're right - I don't expect most APUGgers to to be able to do this test. I know there are a few that are qualified to do something like this. But it obviously requires a 4 place balance, at the least a very good 3 place balance. Steam bath - a hot plate would suffice, just keep it near boiling without actually losing much volume. I think this gives the silicates a chance to drop out of solution at the high pH in the solution.

And despite all the fancy platinum filters it talks about, I've never even seen one like that. I suspect that porcelain Gooch-type filtering crucibles with the proper glass-fiber filter paper is really what people use. I have had access to those types of things at work in the past. And for your water, store bought Deionized water would be fine - prefilter it with the same glass-fiber filter that you do the test with if you are concerend about bacterial matter or other solids in it.

But it is a very simple test to do. If I had a 4 place balance, I would oblige you with a test.

(By the way, I almost bought on at a swap meet years ago. Recovered by the police, sold to a photo-stuff dealer. But it was not functional and I didn't want to risk the chance that it was not going to be repairable at a reasonable cost.)

Mule excrement - that's funny!

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

Patrick, feel free to use your 20 Mule Team. It obviously meets your needs. It meets your empirical requirements as you have demonstrated to yourself time after time. That's fine. That's great. Have fun.

For me, I don't have a lot of time to play around with developers. When I develop stuff, I use the tools that I know are designed for the job. I only get one chance to develop that sheet of film, and I want to give it the best chance of getting processed well that I can give it.

I'm still working off my old bottle of Kodak Borax that I bought years ago. I have to trust that Kodak was selling me the same thing that they were using in their formulations. (Seems like a reasonable assumption.) I like to and I want to use something that is certified as meeting the needs for the task. I use my 20 Mule Team for washing my clothes. I don't use the Kodak borax for washing my clothes.

So keep using your grocercy store chemicals. It's fine. It's working for you. Don't worry about changing. I just want others reading these threads to fully know about and hopefully understand the trade-offs that they are accepting by making these kinds of decisions.

Kirk - not an engineer, but a chemist.

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

Kirk, I don't care what you use. It's your unsupported arguments I deplore. You claim to use chemicals you know, but you don't really know them any better than you know 20 Mule Team Borax, which from what I have read of purity statements could be as good as or better than what you are using. At least I looked into the manufacturer's data and procedures. For all you know, the stuff with the Kodak label was purchased as technical grade borax from what is now Dial corporation. You can read all about it at www.borax.com, but your only response to my statement that 20 Mule Team Borax is in fact technical grade, is suitable and is used in eyedrops, is stated to be non-abrasive in promotional literature by its manufacturer, has as nearly as we can tell the same borax content as the Analytical Reagent grade purchased by one of our members, is a defense of using a product that you do not know as much about. You see, I hope, that nothing I have learned by diligent search tells me that what I use is any more likely to cause failure than what you use, and instead of searching or experimenting for more information on either product, you present an unsupported argument for a different name brand that may in fact be the same quality. What the h-e-double hockeysticks is scientific about that?

gainer · Dec 11, 2007

Well, now, you didn't get ,or at least didn't absorb, what I did at NASA. I thought I told you about designing and writing the transformation equations for the Mercury Astronauts backup reentry guidance. I thought I told you about retiring from NASA with a position description that read "a nationally known expert in the non-linear mathematical modelling of the human operator" which was the way I put to work my courses in Psychology at what was then the College of William and Mary. I thought I told you guys about being responsible and in fact doing the photographic part of a fatigue test of a particular aircraft that must remain unidentified, using homemade apparatus for photographing fatigue cracks in bolt holes. I did the darkroom work as well because knowledge of photography was not enough. If it had been, our very professional Photographic Branch could have done the job. I thought I might have told you about some of my escapades with strange circuits hung on the circuit board of our analog computer, or the design of our planetarium projector that was used in human factors experiments in connection with the Moon landing.

One of my favorite engineering instructors at WVU taught Business Law for engineers. He was fond of saying "Engineers can do anything." The College of Engineering in those days was just that. For nearly the whole of the first three years, including summers, mechanical, electrical, chemical and aeronautical engineering students had the same courses. We had surveying, strength of materials, basic physics, inorganic chemistry, etc. Enough, already. Maybe too much,

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
I thought I told you about [multiple items].

Patrick - you have told me about those things. I really enjoyed hearing about them. They were great things to have done. That's really cool.

gainer said:
[My engineering professor] was fond of saying "Engineers can do anything."

Nice saying. I'm sure engineers could if they wanted, but I'll still keep going to doctors and dentists and lawyers for what they do. And I go to chemists for what they do.

But what's your point? This sounds like one of those arguments from authority.

dancqu · Dec 11, 2007

Kirk Keyes said:
Differences from Photographic Grade, I don't know.
I don't have the specs. But I suspect it is similar.

Via Google I checked for "photographic grade" . All sorts
of information. ISO 10349 covers the grade from
standards to methods. How about Lithium
Sulfate Photographic Grade. Dan

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
It's your unsupported arguments I deplore.

Pat, there's FUD on your side of the argument, and there's FUD on my side of the argument.

Have you demonstrated that Technical Grade is in fact what Kodak sold? Have you demonstrated that Technical Grade meets Photographic Grade specifications?

No.

You can't argue with my view that you should use the right tool for the right job. And personally, I want to try and avoid using an almost good enough tool, or a tool that I don't have confidence in, for the job I have at hand.

You are certainly free to do so.

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

dancqu said:
ISO 10349

So who want to cough up 42 Swiss Francs for this:

ISO 3621:1994
Photography -- Processing chemicals -- Specifications for sodium tetraborate decahydrate

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogu...s.htm?csnumber=20062&ICS1=37&ICS2=040&ICS3=30

Then we'll all know the specification.

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2007

dancqu said:
Via Google I checked for "photographic grade" . All sorts
of information. ISO 10349 covers the grade from
standards to methods. How about Lithium
Sulfate Photographic Grade. Dan

Kodak uses many lithium salts in making analog products. Lithium salts are used in the RA color developer to name one use.

Kodak is ISO certified and uses all ISO standard materials so that they can maintain their ISO certification for all manufacturing processes including photochemicals.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
but your only response to my statement that 20 Mule Team Borax is in fact technical grade

My response is what is the specification for Technical Grade. My understanding is that it is different that ACS Reagent Grade, which I listed earlier. Usually of lesser quality. I would not use Tech Grade acetone in one of my analysis when I need ACS Reagent grade.

Would you be so kind as to post the specs for Technical Grade?

dancqu · Dec 11, 2007

gainer said:
For all you know, the stuff with the Kodak label was
purchased as technical grade borax from what is
now Dial corporation.

Well I don't know about Eastman's Borax but the Acetic
Acid they turn out comes in six Grades; photo, food, feed,
reagent, kosher, and USP.

Photographic Grade is BIG Business. As I've mentioned
ISO 10349 covers the subject start to scratch. Dan

Anscojohn · Dec 11, 2007

Kirk uses EK-labelled Borax from a jug how old? Gainer uses fresh 20 Mule Team. For years I used Mallincrodt Borax from a cardboard canister with a metal screw top for my DK-25R replenisher. That container had been on the photo shop shelf for a long time before I bought it for 29 cents in 1965. I have used 20 Mule Team for my DK-25R for many years. Kirk sez his has gotta be good because the Great Yellow Father say so. Pat, he say 20 Mule Team be pure enough to use for making eye-drops.
Why don't youze guys put this discussion in the can and go out and make some photographs?

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Photo Engineer · Dec 11, 2007

This won't tell you a whole lot, but it is a start: http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx?SearchString=ISO+10349&SearchOption=1&PageNum=0

PE

JBrunner · Dec 11, 2007

Anscojohn said:
Kirk uses EK-labelled Borax from a jug how old? Gainer uses fresh 20 Mule Team. For years I used Mallincrodt Borax from a cardboard canister with a metal screw top for my DK-25R replenisher. That container had been on the photo shop shelf for a long time before I bought it for 29 cents in 1965. I have used 20 Mule Team for my DK-25R for many years. Kirk sez his has gotta be good because the Great Yellow Father say so. Pat, he say 20 Mule Team be pure enough to use for making eye-drops.
Why don't youze guys put this discussion in the can and go out and make some photographs?

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Hey!! Knock it off!!! I'm really enjoying this!!! A nine page disscussion on the purity of Borax is so friggin APUG, it should be plated in gold and framed. (I mean.. er... silver.)

Mick Fagan · Dec 11, 2007

I agree, don't knock it off.

By standing on the sidelines, one can learn heaps by just listening to the main speakers going back and forth.

Very interesting.

Mick.

DarkroomExperimente · Dec 11, 2007

the Wright Bros. were known for debating things back and forth...they'd even switch sides in whatever argument they were having

Borax purity grade

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency