De-ionized water: safe for photo use?

bernard_L · May 8, 2013

Yesterday at the supermarket there was de-ionized water (for household irons) on sale at 1/5Litre, about half the price I'm used to. I was about to grab a few, but then reading the label gave me pause: "not fit for drinking", "keep out of reach of children". So, what stuff could there be in that water that is unfit for humans (apart from the fact that it's not good to dring mostly water that is too soft)? and could it be unfit for photo chemistry?
Notes:
- I use (so far) de-ionized water (a) for final negative rinse because tap water contains particulate matter and I've not gotten around to install an in-line filter (b) for mixing negative developer, just to be on the safe side.
- Here I'm talking about de-ionized water for household irons, not the high-tech stuff used in semiconductor fabrication labs.
- Where I live (France) de-ionized water is a commodity, normally at 2 for a jug of 5 liters. I never saw distilled water on store shelves. From previous threads on related subjects, it seems that the situation in the US is different, with distilled water being available and cheap.
- Valuable insight is given by dancqu in the thread www.apug.org/forums/forum37/38455-distilled-water-question-4.html (emphasis added):

De-ionization deals only with contaminants of an ionic nature and yields ionic free water. The usual water softening by ion-exchange yields soft water with lots of ions. Reverse Osmosis types can reduce considerably both ionic and non-ionic contaminants. Distilled water is essentially de-ionised de-mineralized water.

But that does not really answer my question.

Tom1956 · May 8, 2013

I use plain distilled water from the grocery store. About 95¢ a plastic gallon jug. As far as I know it's de-ionized. And I drink it sometimes. Doesn't taste like anything because nothing is in it.

Gerald C Koch · May 8, 2013

"Not fit for drinking", etc means that the water is not guaranteed to be free of pathogens. But it is fine for photo purposes.

K-G · May 8, 2013

De-ionized and distilled water will change the salt balance in your body. I don't know how much a harmfull volume is but the recommendation is not to drink it. For photographic purposes it should be just fine and for some applications it is even recommended. Use it and enjoy the low price. Here in Sweden it is difficult to get it for less than 4 - 5 € for 5 liter.

Karl-Gustaf

cliveh · May 8, 2013

De-ionized water is fine and I have been using it for years for a 30 second dunk after the wash. No photoflow, no wetting agent, just de-ionized water. I never have any drying marks.

DREW WILEY · May 8, 2013

Deionized and steam distilled are not the same thing. For critical use, I'd only opt for the latter. And since they cost exactly the same in the
supermarkets around here, there's no sense getting anything but the real deal. Our tap water here happens to be quite good, so works perfectly well for ordinary developers, fixers, etc. I always use true distilled for the final film rinse, or during heavy storms when they might
add some excess chlorine to the tap water, or for anything potentially fussy like stock dev or dye concentrates sensitive to either pH or
organics. Ironically, the "drinking water" from the same bottling companies is basically tap water which has first been deonized and had the chlorine taste removed, then has certain minerals selectively added. Seem that pure water tastes odd to most people.

cliveh · May 8, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
Deionized and steam distilled are not the same thing. For critical use, I'd only opt for the latter. And since they cost exactly the same in the
supermarkets around here, there's no sense getting anything but the real deal.

Can you please explain how using the real deal will improve my negatives?

Tom1956 · May 9, 2013

Agreed on the taste and "texture" of distilled water. At the same time comical, to be questioning plain 100% pure distilled water as if it were poison. And if any of us were to guzzle 4 gallons of it in a day, we would either burst open, or spend the whole day behind a tree. And that would be about the worst of it. But photographic chemicals would love it. Contamination-free. Haven't we all got enough other variables? My policy is all developers get mixed in distilled water. That's the 1 chemical that you don't want to risk contaminating.

bernard_L · May 9, 2013

Thank you all for your comments. I agree it should be OK. But what if the process to produce that bargain de-ionized water (see my OP) has exchanged the ions that the steam iron doesn't like (Ca, Na) for other ions that offset the RedOx balance, for instance. Some picture-taking opportunities happen only once...
So, I'll buy one, and do an A/B comparison (water "x" versus usual one) with HC110 dilution H, which, being high dilution, should be most sensitive to water quality.

dorff · May 9, 2013

bernard_L said:
Thank you all for your comments. I agree it should be OK. But what if the process to produce that bargain de-ionized water (see my OP) has exchanged the ions that the steam iron doesn't like (Ca, Na) for other ions that offset the RedOx balance, for instance. Some picture-taking opportunities happen only once...
So, I'll buy one, and do an A/B comparison (water "x" versus usual one) with HC110 dilution H, which, being high dilution, should be most sensitive to water quality.

RedOx is something else, involving a change in oxidation state of at least two and possibly more atoms or groups. When water is purified with de-ionisation, the positive ions (cations) are replaced with H+. This is done by presaturating a cationic resin with an acid such as HCl. When the water is then contacted with it, the sodium, calcium and other positive ions replace the H+ in the resin, and the H+ goes into solution. The opposite is also done, by presaturating an anionic resin with an alkali such as like sodium hydroxide. The OH- anions in the resin are then displaced by the anions such chloride Cl-, sulphate SO4-- etc. As you probably already know, H+ and OH-, when they come together, produce H2O. So the net result is pure water. Ion exchange is not a redox process, as the charge on the ion doesn't change and its composition doesn't change. It is only its dancing partner that changes.

Reverse-osmosis is essentially filtration at a molecular level. Water is forced at very high pressure through a membrane with pores sufficiently large to let water permeate, but not large enough to allow most ions to permeate. Because of their charge, ions have a larger diameter and may be repulsed by selective membranes. The permeate is pure, and the retentate contains a higher concentration of dissolved substances. A practical setup for homes is to use the pipe pressure to do the work, and collect the permeate at a slow rate. The retentate remains in the supply line and will still be fine for bathing, dishwashing etc. The rate at which RO works at these lower pressures allows only a few gallons a day to be purified, but that is usually more than enough for photographic and other home use. The guys who breed tropical fish in 200L tanks might need a larger system. Incidentally, that is also a good place to look for an affordable RO kit.

All the processes to purify water are in one way or another energy, waste and/or cost intensive. In ion exchange, the two waste streams of acid and alkali used to condition the resins can be extensive. In RO, a lot of pumping energy is required to get the water through the membrane, and the membranes are expensive. In distillation, the latent heat of evaporation must be expended in the form of heating or vapour recompression, the latter being more energy (or rather, exergy) efficient. RO is best at removing everything including organics. Distillation is best at producing pathogen-free water, but cannot remove all organic volatiles. So for photographic use, I'd say RO is your best bet. Where I live, we pay ZAR 0,80 per liter. That is about $0,45 per 5 liters. It makes sense to use it for all photographic use other than washing, so I do not really ponder it much. I keep a 20 liter tank with a tap, and top it up with water from our local "fountain" where they fill 5L bottles for ZAR 4 a piece. Our local tap water is dodgy at times, and of course produces very significant drying marks. So the final rinse is always in purified water.

Doremus Scudder · May 9, 2013

Funny that you can't find distilled water in France. Here in Austria it is readily available and carries a label in both German (destilliertes Wasser) and Italian (acqua destillata). It's what I use for the final rinse with photoflo. Five liters is under 2 euros.

De-ionized water, however, will be fine for your purposes as well. If that's all you can find, use it.

Best,

Doremus

Ian Grant · May 9, 2013

Distilled water is no better than De-ionised for photographic use and in most areas tap water's OK as well, - there's really only issues in hard water areas.

Ian

Sal Santamaura · May 9, 2013

Ian Grant said:
Distilled water is no better than De-ionised for photographic use and in most areas tap water's OK as well, - there's really only issues in hard water areas.

Ian

Anyone who's mixing XTOL stock using soft tap water of unknown iron content is asking for trouble. Mix XTOL stock using distilled (not "de-ionised," but "prepared using steam distillation") water. Store it in full glass bottles. Enjoy the benefits. See:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian Grant · May 9, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Anyone who's mixing XTOL stock using soft tap water of unknown iron content is asking for trouble. Mix XTOL stock using distilled (not "de-ionised," but "prepared using steam distillation") water. Store it in full glass bottles. Enjoy the benefits. See:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I used Xtol and soft and hard tap waters for many years, replenished, from it's release until about 5 years ago, never had a problem. The issue is iron content of the water.

Ian

Sal Santamaura · May 9, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Anyone who's mixing XTOL stock using soft tap water of unknown iron content is asking for trouble. Mix XTOL stock using distilled (not "de-ionised," but "prepared using steam distillation") water...

Ian Grant said:
I used Xtol and soft and hard tap waters for many years, replenished, from it's release until about 5 years ago, never had a problem. The issue is iron content of the water...

Which is why I emphasized the unknown iron content of tap water, regardless of its hardness. Even if a single tap water sample is analyzed and iron found not to be a problem, variations throughout the year are inevitable.

Just like the decision to use less of a particular developer stock solution than its manufacturer's specified minimum quantity, this is a "confidence or crap shoot" situation.

Ian Grant · May 9, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Which is why I emphasized the unknown iron content of tap water, regardless of its hardness. Even if a single tap water sample is analyzed and iron found not to be a problem, variations throughout the year are inevitable.

Just like the decision to use less of a particular developer stock solution than its manufacturer's specified minimum quantity, this is a "confidence or crap shoot" situation.

While not disagreeing remember that Kodak themselves don't actually specifical recommend using Distilled or Deionised water with Xtol in their Data-sheet. Traces of Iron will cause severe problems with fixers where the Iron and Thiosulphate form a fast acting bleach. I have had minute Iron particles in water way back in the 70's long before Xtol.

Ian

cliveh · May 9, 2013

Every developer/stop/fix and many other photographic solutions I have ever made up, I have always used tap water. Never had a problem.

Sal Santamaura · May 9, 2013

Ian Grant said:
While not disagreeing remember that Kodak themselves don't actually specifical recommend using Distilled or Deionised water with Xtol in their Data-sheet...

In my opinion, Kodak's lawyers have been vastly more competent than its executive management over the course of recent decades. Adding an "avoid iron" recommendation to the XTOL data sheet would have opened the company to liability for all the "dreaded XTOL failure" losses incurred by users of the product. Much easier to blame (and discontinue) the one liter packages.

Ian Grant said:
...Traces of Iron will cause severe problems with fixers where the Iron and Thiosulphate form a fast acting bleach...

I dilute TF-4 fixer stock with distilled water too.

The advantage to our alkaline and rather hard tap water here is that it is very effective at washing. A final Photo-Flo film rinse gets mixed with distilled.

Ian Grant · May 9, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Ian, Sal, this comes up occasionally with respect to mixing XTOL. What I've never understood is - XTOL contains an Iron sequestering agent. So why would a small amount of Iron in the water be a serious problem? I can see how it would be a problem with home-mix ascorbate developers, but it shouldn't be an issue with XTOL.

Also - Sal - regarding steam distilled being better than deionized for XTOL, actually I recall Gerald Koch saying it could potentially be the other way around if the steam distilling apparatus introduces Iron into the water.

Just thought I'd throw that extra wrench into the XTOL/water quality debacle.

All the reports of rapid failure were in the early years of Xtol production, Kodak must have made it more robust. Xtol keeps just as well as any other powder developer.

Ian

Sal Santamaura · May 9, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
...regarding steam distilled being better than deionized for XTOL, actually I recall Gerald Koch saying it could potentially be the other way around if the steam distilling apparatus introduces Iron into the water...

It's difficult to imagine that the cold side of a distillation process (condensing steam) might introduce more iron into resulting water than a deionizing plant would. In either case, iron levels have to be orders of magnitude lower than what comes out of some taps.

I've never had an XTOL failure either. Steam distilled water is sold here in grocery stores at $3 for a 2-1/2 gallon container. Compared to the cost of everything else in photography, that's noise level. I see no reason not to keep using it for mixing/diluting XTOL and other powdered developers, diluting liquid developer/fixer concentrates and mixing Photo-Flo rinse solutions. Ultra-cheap insurance, especially where film is concerned.

DREW WILEY · May 9, 2013

Most "deionized" water sold in this area is actually produced reverse osmosis. Try putting it in your car battery and see what happens. I'll stick
with distilled, thank you.

cliveh · May 9, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
Most "deionized" water sold in this area is actually produced reverse osmosis. Try putting it in your car battery and see what happens. I'll stick
with distilled, thank you.

What's wrong with reverse osmosis?

Blooze · May 9, 2013

We use in-house deionized water in the laboratory I work at. One thing to keep in mind with DI-water is that it will rust and pit stainless steel over time. Because the mineral ions are removed from the water it tends to pull ions off the metal, resulting in the pitting.

I've only processed a couple of rolls of film so far since I'm just restarting the whole film process, but I mixed up my ID-11, stop, and fixer as well as washed with filtered water from the tap with no issues that I could see. We just have one of the under-the-sink RO systems that removes most of the minerals. I figured I'd try that first before having to buy and store bottles of distilled.

Gerald C Koch · May 9, 2013

To clarify my post on distilled water. If the condenser portion of the distilling apparatus is made of metal such as copper or iron this will introduce these ions into the water. Ascorbate is very sensitive to these ions due to the Fenton reaction. This is why Kodak uses a chelating agent DTPA in Xtol

DREW WILEY · May 9, 2013

It's not smart to use lead solder in your moonshine still either. But correct distilling is still going to give the cleanest water. Reverse osmosis
is for removing organic contaminants to create drinking water from whatever; some chemicals might get thru anyway. It's a semi-permeable
membrane system, to phrase it generically. Or you could passive filter things with a portable water purifier system - still wouldn't remove
everything. A lot depends on where you live and what the tap water is like. Here we get good snowmelt from clear across the state, so the
water quality is excellent. A few miles inland they get treated river water that is essentially over-chlorinated swimming pool water with a cocktail of agricultural runoff, incl trace amts of all kinds of pesticides. Dry climates can have very hard water with quite a bit of alkali. I hesitate to say where some of our highly advertised bottled water comes from. A least one brand is bottled at a superfund site, because nobody is actually allowed to live there anymore! The spring is some distance away ... but it still makes you want to think twice!

De-ionized water: safe for photo use?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency