Guys;
I have given a set of possible scenarios for the potential errors in using other than pure chemicals. This by no means eliminates them from potential use, but it does magnify the variables in processing and things you need to sort out if something goes wrong. I urge you to use chemicals of the highest purity for critical work. (Photo Grade)
As I said above, I know of several chemicals that Kodak uses that require ball milling before use, but are otherwise in commercial use in other areas and are otherwise photo grade except for the size of the solid matter in the chemicals themselves.
I refer you to my earlier posts on the possible uses in photography of some grades of chemicals available and I urge you to exercise caution with all chemicals. They can either burn or poison in their pure state and many retain that character even when dilute.
If you want any questions answered, please ask. The generic comments I've made can apply to all chemicals. You have my 30+ years experience in photographic chemistry here on-tap.
For Patrick:
Boranes as a family were used as additives to rocket and jet fuels. The energy released was just slightly below hydrogen and the boranes were liquid at room temperature. But, because they had only engineering tests they didn't know that from a chemistry standpoint the boranes were shock sensitive. Therefore, as the boranes aged and their sensitivity went up, airplanes began exploding spontaneously with the slightest bump. One of the last F10X series (maybe the F105) was originally designed to use either tetraborane or decaborane, as was the B58 (IIRC). In any event, without the boranes in use, the planes performance was way below spec and they were both quickly retired. This was quite a scandal in the late 50s when it became public. I'm surprised that you never heard of this. (This information comes from my Air Force magazines in the 50s, which is the official US Air Force publication for all officers.)
PE