MSDSes that I can see for metol suggest that it isn't readily biodegraded, and that it is toxic to aquatic organisms. I can see (but not read without signing up to services I don't want) academic journal articles where people tried oxidising metol with peroxide, with or without a catalyst, and with or without UV light; that is, they experimented with destroying the metol chemically (in some effluent; I don't know what) before a biological stage of treatment.
Metol was Agfa's trade name for it; Kodak called it Elon; no wonder it's poisonous.
Hi, I dispose of all my chemicals, ie. developers and fixers, responsibly with a fellow that services the local laboratories and extracts the silver. My usual roll film developer is PMK and I will continue to dispose of it in this way together with spent fixers. However I'm starting to use larger volumes of D76H developer to process sheet film and I'd like to know if this developer is safe, environmentally, to dispose of down the household sink. I guess not, but thought it might be worth asking here. Each litre of D76H concentrate has the following chemical amounts: 2.5g metol, 100g sodium sulphite and 2g of Borax. I'm using working solutions of 1:1 to 1:4.
Cheers,
It won't kill the last wale in the ocean but it's always better to dispose of it through local haz-mat services. In Germany they make thiseasier because, there are free drp-off stations run by the cities!
is dumping a Phenidone-Ascorbic Acid developer less hazardous for the environment?
You may notice a little cynicism in my words, which is due to the fact that determining the 'eco-ness' of a product is insanely complex,
It won't kill the last wale in the ocean but it's always better to dispose of it through local haz-mat services. In Germany they make thiseasier because, there are free drp-off stations run by the cities!
tip it down the sink with lots of water
Photo chemicals designed for consumer use are also designed to be safe to wash down the sink/toilet.
They're designed to develop film or prints, fix film or prints, bleach film or prints, or tone prints. It's coincidence that they can mostly be dumped down any drain without worry. Direct human toxicity is more of a concern - and that wasn't always the case. Get a bottle of Kodak Film Cleaner and huff a drop of it. These companies were forced to stop using certain compounds.
or German water treatment is woefully inadequate. I find the latter hard to believe.
Photo chemicals designed for consumer use are also designed to be safe to wash down the sink/toilet. Unless your local water treatment is woefully inadequate, it's perfectly fine. Just think of the small amounts of photo chemicals this hobby generates compared to 40 years ago when more people had darkrooms, more people were shooting film.
They're designed to develop film or prints, fix film or prints, bleach film or prints, or tone prints. It's coincidence that they can mostly be dumped down any drain without worry.
Part of the design criteria for the home or small volume user packaging of photographic chemicals is, indeed, the fact that the volumes produced can be relatively safely handled and disposed of by the intended user.
If you are buying your photo-chemicals in 40 gallon drums, the environmental and regulatory concerns are different than if you buy a small bag of powder developer one every several months.
Not to pick too much, but that's a bit silly. The chemicals are the same if in a small packet or a 40-gallon drum. Selling a packet that makes a litre of developer has nothing to do with whether or not it can be safely dumped down the drain and all to do with the fact that a home user doesn't need and would never possibly use a 40-gallon drum of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?