Don't store XTOL with Dust-Off

Since this old thread is resurrected anyway...

I bought wide-mouth glass amber bottles and many glass marbles. When a chemical is partially used I can just drop a few marbles into the bottle to displace the air and re-cap. No gas to use up. No worries other than ensuring I place the used marbles in a colander and rinse thoroughly in hot water before using again. Easy easy easy... no complications... nothing to think about.

Very interesting and very weird. The gas in canned "air" is of the Freon family and has an assigned number. It's closely related to R-134a used in car A/C's. (As a side note I have very successfully used a butane/propane mixture in a car requiring the old R-12.)

One would think it would be inert, but apparently not.

A lot of expensive or inconvenient ideas here. I guess if I needed to "de-air" my bottles, I'd just shoot some propane in from my propane torch. Handy, cheap. Just don't smoke around your Xtol! Ha ha..

BTW, I've harped on this before, but this is a good place to re-harp: PET plastic water and drink bottles are NOT impermeable to gases, including water vapor. Set one of those thin water bottles unopened somewhere and wait a few months. It will be partially collapsed as the water migrates outward.

I use, mostly, 1 liter sparking water bottles, much thicker. For developers intended for long storage, I spray with a few layers of lacquer. My research on preserving injet prints led me into all these weird, dark corners about permeability. Lacquer is almost as good as glass or metal. In fact, cellophone is relatively permeable, so it's sprayed with lacquer to keep your Twinkies fresh.

Paul Verizzo said:

BTW, I've harped on this before, but this is a good place to re-harp: PET plastic water and drink bottles are NOT impermeable to gases, including water vapor. Set one of those thin water bottles unopened somewhere and wait a few months. It will be partially collapsed as the water migrates outward.

Click to expand...

PET has less gas permeability than LDPE or HDPE.

At least over here you even can get bottles for still water in two thicknesses.

AgX said:

PET has less gas permeability than LDPE or HDPE.

At least over here you even can get bottles for still water in two thicknesses.

Click to expand...

Not true. Sorry, I'm not going to spend a lot of time linking you to my references. For instance, the original Saran wrap was hugely impermeable, the "upgrade" from ten"???? years ago, is just LDPE.

The bottom line remains PET is permeable.

Paul Verizzo said:

A lot of expensive or inconvenient ideas here.

Click to expand...

I'd agree and the cheapest( in fact free if you like wine), most effective system is the one mentioned already but seemingly ignored. The wine bladder one.

My Xtol in a winebag is now 20 months old. I developed a film in this last week and it is as good as when I mixed it.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I'd agree and the cheapest( in fact free if you like wine), most effective system is the one mentioned already but seemingly ignored. The wine bladder one.

My Xtol in a winebag is now 20 months old. I developed a film in this last week and it is as good as when I mixed it.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Box wine bladders are great........if you don't mind the squishiness, the inability to keep in control. They are made of mylar, very impermeable.

Fluorocarbons are generally considered quite unreactive. I wonder what chemistry would cause difluoroethane to alter the development properties of XTOL.

Same here!

Paul Verizzo said:

Not true. Sorry, I'm not going to spend a lot of time linking you to my references. For instance, the original Saran wrap was hugely impermeable, the "upgrade" from ten"???? years ago, is just LDPE.

The bottom line remains PET is permeable.

Click to expand...

I have no idea to what extend I was wrong. With Saran you brought a 4th material into the discussion.


Gaspermeability of plastics is dependant on the character of the migrating substance as well as the current state of the plastic. All factors that complicate the discussion.


Furthermore Saran was not "upgraded" with lesser permeability in mind. To the contrary.

AgX said:

I have no idea to what extend I was wrong. With Saran you brought a 4th material into the discussion.


Gaspermeability of plastics is dependant on the character of the migrating substance as well as the current state of the plastic. All factors that complicate the discussion.


Furthermore Saran was not "upgraded" with lesser permeability in mind. To the contrary.

Click to expand...

Semantics. Food wrap was "upgraded" from the maker's point of view. Not that I know why the whole industry changed. Maybe the original Saran bled toxins into the food, I don't know. Like the BPA thing today.

Their is no fourth confounder, and yes, the matters you bring up about permeability are correct. I wasn't trying to be an encyclopedia on it here. (Not that I could, I know enough to have answered my own questions.)

pentaxuser said:

I'd agree and the cheapest( in fact free if you like wine), most effective system is the one mentioned already but seemingly ignored. The wine bladder one.

My Xtol in a winebag is now 20 months old. I developed a film in this last week and it is as good as when I mixed it.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I'm not completely sure what that rancid liquid that comes in wine boxes is, but it isn't wine. In any event the bladders do indeed work well.

RE wine bladders: Is a thorough rinse all that's needed to prepare them for photo chemical storage?

Old-N-Feeble said:

RE wine bladders: Is a thorough rinse all that's needed to prepare them for photo chemical storage?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Interesting observation.