Can Potassium Ferricyanide Be Used To Remove Stains On White Fiber Print Borders?

[Arthurwg]

In this case I believe the stains are ink from a printer. If this would work, what dilution of PF should be used? Should the print be rewashed after that?

 

[koraks]

In this case I believe the stains are ink from a printer.

These are dye or pigment stains depending on the printer/ink used. Potassium ferricyanide will do nothing about these stains.
If they are dye stains, you could try something like Kodak's dye reducer, which is based on potassium permanganate, but since the dyes typically used in printers are much more permanent/resistant to chemical attack than chromogenic dyes, the odds of this doing anything are very minimal. If they are pigment (which is more likely since most inkjet printers use carbon pigment mostly for black ink), there's absolute nothing you can do except trim off the borders or overmat them.

 

[Rudeofus]

You can try to destroy the ink with strong oxidizers (koraks already mentioned permanganate) or strong reducers (like Sodium Dithionite), or you can try a range of strong organic solvents starting with Acetone and plastic glue, going all the way to DMSO.

You should also definitely try upfront, whether these printer inks respond to this treatment, and whether this specific type of fiber print paper survives that kind of treatment.

 

[nmp]

If it is dye based ink, it should wash off with water. You can test it with a drop of water. Pigment inks, then no. Curious, how did they get there in the first place?

 

[koraks]

If it is dye based ink, it should wash off with water

Partly, at least, but I expect some will always remain visible. I was messing around with dyes and gelatin some time ago, and the very nicely "washable" dyes remained trapped in the gelatin, withstanding extensive washing. I expect the same will be true for inkjet dyes.

 

[Arthurwg]

Curious, how did they get there in the first place?

Somehow my partner got ink from her printer in contact with a fiber picture from the darkroom. She needs the picture for a show but the negative is unfortunately 1700 miles away, making a new print difficult in time.

 

[mshchem]

This is the old Kodak, emphasis on old. Basically a sort of rubbing compound. It would be tricky to try to remove the surface stain and not have it look weird.

 

[jeffreyg]

A safe approach would be to carefully mask the image and spray paint the borders using a paint that matches the print surface ie matte, semi gloss etc. Experiment on another reject print first to match the finish. The other means mentioned was to cover with a window mat

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Till a certain extend ink stains can be removed wit household chlorine (Cl) ("bleekwater" in Flemish), as used to thoroughly clean the kitchen or bathroom.
And if the print you are talking about is a genuine FB photographic wet print, then you can wash the chlorine out with plain water, or els there wil be a yellow stain left which wil get somewhat darker over tine.

That's how I managed to remove the stain of the famous blue ink, as used for stamping my name on the back, from the emulsion side, but there was still a kind of faint bluish 'shadow' left, but I could live with it as it was a print from a hard to print negative...

 

[koraks]

Till a certain extend ink stains can be removed wit household chlorine (Cl) ("bleekwater" in Flemish)

It's worth a try, but it's also worth noting that dyes are not created equal. Some dyes will break down easily, others are very permanent indeed. I'd expect inkjet dyes to fall largely in the latter category (although their 'archivelness' is evidently suspect from the get-go) since they're intended to be as stable as feasible.

And then there's of course the problem that this is quite likely not a dye, but a pigment. There's no bleaching a carbon black pigment. It's basically just soot.

One word of caution about the chlorine bleach, btw: it'll not just break down some dyes, it'll also break down gelatin emulsions. Applying chlorine bleach to a gelatin emulsion will soften it and in larger concentrations strip the gelatin off entirely. I've done this many times myself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pure voodoo. All of the above will attack some of the colorant, but not all of them, depending. And it is almost impossible to prevent some edge penetration blurring your boundary, which might in fact progress over time, creating an evident "halo" which might not immediately appear. Furthermore, it's bad for the paper itself.

Crop it off with the overlying window mat instead, or else trim it flush for mounting.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Till a certain extend ink stains can be removed wit household chlorine (Cl) ("bleekwater" in Flemish), as used to thoroughly clean the kitchen or bathroom.
And if the print you are talking about is a genuine FB photographic wet print, then you can wash the chlorine out with plain water, or els there wil be a yellow stain left which wil get somewhat darker over tine.

That's how I managed to remove the stain of the famous blue ink, as used for stamping my name on the back, from the emulsion side, but there was still a kind of faint bluish 'shadow' left, but I could live with it as it was a print from a hard to print negative...

Careful!!! My experience with chlorine bleach and photographic emulsions is that the bleach will strip the emulsion right off the paper base! I would NOT try chlorine bleach to do this without testing thoroughly. You'd likely have to use a very, very weak dilution.

Doremus

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Careful!!! My experience with chlorine bleach and photographic emulsions is that the bleach will strip the emulsion right off the paper base! I would NOT try chlorine bleach to do this without testing thoroughly. You'd likely have to use a very, very weak dilution.

Doremus

That's why I used household chlorine: La Croix eau de Javel!
I didn't suggest a dilution as I don't know what kind is sold in the poster's country. But indeed, some testing is important.

I think for swimming pools it's 12,5%?

 

[koraks]

That's why I used household chlorine

Household bleach (which is not chlorine; it's a hypochlorite solution) is much too strong to use in pure form on a gelatin emulsion. Try diluting it 1+100 or so, apply sparingly and wash thoroughly afterwards. The gelatin emulsion may still discolor and it will soften during treatment.

 

[Ian C]

As noted in post #12, sodium hypochlorite laundry bleach can dissolve gelatine. I've used it to strip emulsion from scrap sheet-film negatives to repurpose the base. So, no, it's not to be used on a print.

 

[koraks]

Indeed. See #10.

 

[eli griggs]

Process a blank sheet of the same paper, and mount it with Kodak mounting paper to the trimmed print.

Otherwise, embrace the stain, mat it as is, with a tight border and move on.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Household bleach (which is not chlorine; it's a hypochlorite solution) is much too strong to use in pure form on a gelatin emulsion. Try diluting it 1+100 or so, apply sparingly and wash thoroughly afterwards. The gelatin emulsion may still discolor and it will soften during treatment.

I must have been lucky then, the emulsion's gelatine didn't dissolve (AGFA MCC FB 111 paper), only a yellowish discolouration (of the paper base?) persisted.
But I have to admit that the paper was pre-wetted, useless for dissolving stamping ink I know, but I did it in an automatic reflex as I was/am used to wet the paper before any post treatment (and when little accidents happen).
I immediately held that print under running water from the water tap, and I hoped that by this the ink wouldn't really dry.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Household bleach (which is not chlorine; it's a hypochlorite solution) is much too strong to use in pure form on a gelatin emulsion. Try diluting it 1+100 or so, apply sparingly and wash thoroughly afterwards. The gelatin emulsion may still discolor and it will soften during treatment.

What is commonly called "chlorine bleach" in the U.S. is a sodium hypochlorite solution, often with sodium hydroxide and other ingredients (surfactants, fragrances, etc.). "Clorox" is the most recognizable name brand.

Elemental chlorine is a gas and is quite toxic (don't mix hypochlorite bleach and ammonia!) and was used as a chemical weapon in WWI (and still is, regrettably ).

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

My neighbors were both chemists who worked for Clorox. And people still sometimes die from using chlorine and ammonia at the same time. Ammonia in a squirt gun will allegedly teach mean dogs a lesson just as fast as a skunk can.

 

[Pieter12]

Is there a problem with trimming off the white border? Many dry-mounted prints are trimmed to the edge of the image, it is an acceptable and standard procedure.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Just to be clear (which wouldn't be a problem with chlorine...), this is the La Croix eau de Javel (-le) I used.
I got it from Wikipedia to whom I am grateful:

"...L'eau de Javel (appelée aussi javel ou anciennement eau de Javelle3,4) est une solution liquide oxydante fréquemment utilisée comme désinfectant et comme décolorant.

Étudiée particulièrement à partir de 1775 par le chimiste Claude-Louis Berthollet, dont la manufacture de produits chimiques a été construite dans le quartier de Javel à Paris, elle est composée d'hypochlorite de sodium pur (NaClO), en solution aqueuse avec du sel (NaCl), résiduel du procédé de fabrication.

La réaction de fabrication de l'eau de Javel (NaClO) à partir de dichlore et de soude (NaOH) est :Cl2 + 2 NaOH → NaCl + NaClO + H2O.

L'eau de Javel est une solution basique, dont le pH varie en fonction de la concentration (pH = 11,5 pour l'eau de Javel à 2,6 % de chlore actif ; pH = 12,5 pour l'eau de Javel concentrée à 9,6 % de chlore actif)5.

L'eau de Javel contenant des atomes de chlore, on dit souvent par extension que de l'eau javellisée est « chlorée », terme qui est imprécis, car l'acide chlorhydrique est également une solution chlorée, et l'odeur caractéristique de l'eau de Javel n'a rien à voir avec l'odeur du dichlore..."

 

[koraks]

I got it from Wikipedia

Yes. Which translates to pretty much what @Doremus Scudder and I said above.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

So, we have a consensus now?

Yes. Which translates to pretty much what @Doremus Scudder and I said above.

So, do we have a consensus now?

 

[koraks]

In the sense that bleach isn't chlorine and that it's a poor choice for treating exhibition prints - I hope so, yes. I'm not quite sure what the purpose was of the Wikipedia quote; I take it that you weren't quite sure if you could rely on Doremus' and my comments and wanted to verify with an external source. It's always good to be skeptical.