For Accordion Bottle Users

[Felinik]

Time to wake this old thread up.

Newbie on accordion bottles, but got two of em with liquids in here now. I'm better safe than sorry so I wrap them up in plastic zip-lock bags. Should any problems arise, there's a second "shield", which probably should help protecting against oxygene too...

 

[BradS]

as others have said, the accordion bottles are bad news. You're far better off with a bunch of plain glass bottles. When I mix up a gallon of stock it goes into four quart sized glass bottles with poly cone caps. Developers like Dektol, D-76 and D-23 easily keep for the advertised 6 months in full bottles. I've had a bottle of replenished D-23 last over a year and a half.

 

[cliveh]

I agree with others, as accordion bottles never worked all that well. A much cheaper and easier method is to use an old squeezable soda bottles, as you can see when squeezing when any air gap is closed off.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My own empirical evidence shows, after about five years of using the same accordion bottles, that they work.

My three-year-old replenished Xtol developer, (and Edwal 12 before it), is stored in a 2liter plastic DATA Tainer bottle, and my replenisher is stored in a 2liter accordion bottle and the remaining 3liters in single 1liter bottles. When the accordion bottle is just under half full, I'll pitch another 1liter bottle full into it to fill it back up. I go perpetually like this, and I am yet to have a single issue in five years. The Xtol is stored for a long time like this, up to a year, always with full activity.

Same thing with my Ethol LPD print developer, which I also replenish. 2liter accordion bottle for the replenisher, and the rest of the gallon kit in 1liter smaller Data-tainer bottles.

What is it that makes people have bad things happen to them with the accordion bottles? I see absolutely no difference in the quality of my developers with accordion bottles compared to normal bottles.

 

[Felinik]

For long time storage of mixed x-tol I've bought two "brown/orange" opaque normal plastic bottles, and then I have planned to use one of the accordion bottles I have for "working mix" and refill it when empty from the normal plastic bottles (2 liters at a time). Right now it's just a bit less than 1 liter in the accordion and 2x2+ liters in the normal opaque bottles. I am sure this will be just fine. My second accordion is filled to the brim with 1+31 Studional.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with accordion bottles is that they are made of polyethylene. This plastic is not impervious to oxygen which sort of defeats their purpose. They should not be used for developers.

Their design makes them impossible to clean should something precipitate on the walls that is not soluble in water.

 

[pentaxuser]

My own empirical evidence shows, after about five years of using the same accordion bottles, that they work.

What is it that makes people have bad things happen to them with the accordion bottles? I see absolutely no difference in the quality of my developers with accordion bottles compared to normal bottles.

Thomas, I too wonder what reasonably scientific tests have been done which shows that accordion bottles do not work. It is said that the plastic of which they are made allows air to get in through the plastic. What is the evidence for this? Looking through old darkroom books they were mentioned as the "things to have" and clearly sold well for many years. You'd have thought that in a very short time, if they were defective, they'd not have sold. Even in pre-internet days when magazines like Amateur Photographer and camera clubs were the darkroom enthusiasts' only source of help you would have expected to see complaints but there doesn't seem to have been any

Plastic "soda pop" type bottles are of course cheaper(no cost at all in fact) but can only be squeezed so far.

When I first set up my darkroom, having bought a set of accordion bottles secondhand, I had never heard of forums such as APUG and did not have the benefit of their content. The accordion bottles looked to be a sensible buy and ignorance being bliss I filled them with stock solution developer and never noticed a problem.

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

Thomas, I too wonder what reasonably scientific tests have been done which shows that accordion bottles do not work. It is said that the plastic of which they are made allows air to get in through the plastic. What is the evidence for this? Looking through old darkroom books they were mentioned as the "things to have" and clearly sold well for many years. You'd have thought that in a very short time, if they were defective, they'd not have sold. Even in pre-internet days when magazines like Amateur Photographer and camera clubs were the darkroom enthusiasts' only source of help you would have expected to see complaints but there doesn't seem to have been any

Plastic "soda pop" type bottles are of course cheaper(no cost at all in fact) but can only be squeezed so far.

When I first set up my darkroom, having bought a set of accordion bottles secondhand, I had never heard of forums such as APUG and did not have the benefit of their content. The accordion bottles looked to be a sensible buy and ignorance being bliss I filled them with stock solution developer and never noticed a problem.

pentaxuser

In terms of effect we are talking semantics and you wont notice any difference between developer kept in an accordion bottle and any other. However, I would say in terms of Plastic "soda pop" type bottles are of course cheaper(no cost at all in fact) but can only be squeezed so far. When this is the case you just transfer to a smaller soda bottle (cheap as chips).

 

[markbarendt]

Another alternative that I've had great luck with is recycled wine boxes. If you and your buddies drink boxed wine it doesn't take too long to get to where you have extras.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The problem with accordion bottles is that they are made of polyethylene. This plastic is not impervious to oxygen which sort of defeats their purpose. They should not be used for developers.

Their design makes them impossible to clean should something precipitate on the walls that is not soluble in water.

So how come they work so well, all theory aside?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Another alternative that I've had great luck with is recycled wine boxes. If you and your buddies drink boxed wine it doesn't take too long to get to where you have extras.

I've heard really good things about wine bladders. Friends of mine use them, and keep developers fresh for a very long time.

 

[eddie]

I haven't used them in years, but never had a problem as long as the bottle was dedicated to one chemical. The only time I ever had issues was when they were used for different chemicals. They're very difficult to clean. Residue gets caught in the accordion folds, and is almost impossible to clean thoroughly.
Last year, I was given some accordion bottles. After trying to clean one (in extremely hot water), I hack-sawed it in half. There was all sorts of residue in the folds.

 

[markbarendt]

I've heard really good things about wine bladders. Friends of mine use them, and keep developers fresh for a very long time.

Yep

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So how come they work so well, all theory aside?

Some years ago there was a long discussion on pure-silver about storing developers. Of the five most common materials used for bottles glass is the best followed by PET and PVC both rated as good and HDPE and LDPE were rated as poor. In my own experience HDPE and LDPE produced shorter life even with the air queezed out.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Some years ago there was a long discussion on pure-silver about storing developers. Of the five most common materials used for bottles glass is the best followed by PET and PVC both rated as good and HDPE and LDPE were rated as poor. In my own experience HDPE and LDPE produced shorter life even with the air queezed out.

Interesting. I get 12 months out of my Xtol stock when stores in the accordion bottles I use, and six months out of LPD.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Here are some oxygen permeability data from the following website http://www.ucc.ie/fcis/PKplastics.htm

The larger the value the greater the oxygen transfer rate.

LDPE 7900 > HDPE 2900 > PVC 120 > PET 95 (units cm3/m2.24h.atm)

The difference between the two polyethylenes and PET and PVC is striking.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here are some oxygen permeability data from the following website http://www.ucc.ie/fcis/PKplastics.htm

The larger the value the greater the oxygen transfer rate.

LDPE 7900 > HDPE 2900 > PVC 120 > PET 95 (units cm3/m2.24h.atm)

The difference between the two polyethylenes and PET and PVC is striking.

I understand the theory, and I thank you for posting it. What it doesn't explain is why the accordion bottles still work fine.

 

[markbarendt]

I understand the theory, and I thank you for posting it. What it doesn't explain is why the accordion bottles still work fine.

There are various anecdotal ways the following truism has been said, the exact numbers don't matter, the concept is born out in my experience.

"Perfection is illusive and expensive, every half step toward perfect requires double the effort of the previous step. The first 50% of quality is possible with limited attention and effort, the next 25% takes twice that effort, and so on."

So as a possible example in the case of the accorian bottles the first 50% is available just by putting it in a bottle (any bottle rather than staying in a tray), squeezing out the air may get us to 75% of perfect, keeping it away from heat might get us to 87.5% of perfect.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's very well written, Mark.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Xtol is given 6-12 months as 'life span' by Kodak after it's mixed, and if properly stored, I'm getting 100%, because after 6-12 months in accordion bottles I see no difference.

So it raises the question of what level of importance should be given to storing your liquid concentrates and working solutions in vessels that have better characteristics than accordion bottles.

I don't like 'convention' and assumptions. I like to see for myself by doing. Empirical evidence outweighs theory, in my opinion.

There are various anecdotal ways the following truism has been said, the exact numbers don't matter, the concept is born out in my experience.

"Perfection is illusive and expensive, every half step toward perfect requires double the effort of the previous step. The first 50% of quality is possible with limited attention and effort, the next 25% takes twice that effort, and so on."

So as a possible example in the case of the accorian bottles the first 50% is available just by putting it in a bottle (any bottle rather than staying in a tray), squeezing out the air may get us to 75% of perfect, keeping it away from heat might get us to 87.5% of perfect.

 

[BradS]

Theory and evidence go together. Either one absent the other is pretty useless.

 

[BradS]

And while were addressing the insanity of photgraphers...lets examine the film in the freezer paradigm....talk about going after the last few percent...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Theory and evidence go together. Either one absent the other is pretty useless.

Perhaps I misunderstand. Not sure what you're saying, but ponder this: If theory is assumed correct, but there is no empirical evidence to back it up, I agree that the theory was not directly helpful. (Indirectly the theory can still be useful. It isn't possible to prove every theory correct [theorem?]). Conversely, however, if practice and use reveals that something works, why does it matter what the theory says? That part does not make sense to me. If it works, it works!

 

[BradS]

there is a theory or, more properly, a hypothesis behind the "if it work, it works" approach. Namely, the implicit assumption, or hypothesis is that it works. Your empirical evidence does not contradict the (implicit) hypothesis and so, you accept your hypothesis as a working theory.

I started with the same hypothesis but, my empirical evidence contradicted the "it works" hypothesis so, I am forced to reject the hypothesis.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

there is a theory or, more properly, a hypothesis behind the "if it work, it works" approach. Namely, the implicit assumption, or hypothesis is that it works. Your empirical evidence does not contradict the (implicit) hypothesis and so, you accept your hypothesis as a working theory.

I started with the same hypothesis but, my empirical evidence contradicted the "it works" hypothesis so, I am forced to reject the hypothesis.

Well, I assume that if somebody sells a container to be used for chemical storage that it is capable of storing chemicals. It does that quite well, without fault as far as I'm concerned.

There are many theories to why the accordion bottle may or may not work. Material, construction, thickness, ability to purge oxidizing air, cap seal, light filtration, response to heat and humidity, chemical resistance... Many factors can affect how the bottle will work. Should I form a hypothesis for each and every one of those, and then debate within or do research to figure out whether I think it will work? Or should I just go ahead and use it? You're making it too complicated to buy a bottle to store chemicals in, Brad... I don't want my brain to hurt. I want it to have a good time.

 

[ic-racer]

This article may be of interest :-

http://www.udmercy.edu/crna/agm/phenvitc.htm

I no longer use accordion/concertina bottles.

I don't see where they tested the accordion bottles on that article.