How I successfully removed fungus

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,120
Messages
2,786,449
Members
99,816
Latest member
suhefus
Recent bookmarks
1

Jonathan R

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
86
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
There have been several threads on photo.net about rescuing old negatives and slides that have become infected with fungus. I have seen it suggested that cellulase (an enzyme that digests cellulose, of which plant cell walls are made) might work; but conversely that fungal cell walls are made of chitin, not cellulose. One published procedure (http://cool.conservation-us.org/byorg/abbey/an/an26/an26-5/an26-512.html ) was complicated, included a period in the freezer, and involved the use of ammonia, which I would have expected to endanger the dyes of colour films. So here is a description of a very simple procedure that worked for me. I hope it will help others.

I had some Kodachrome and Fujichrome 35mm slides from the 1970s to 90s that were covered in unidentified fungus. I could scrounge some cellulase from a school laboratory, but not chitinase (if such a thing exists). I know little about the mode of action at a molecular level, but thought there was enough similarity in the molecular structure of cellulose and chitin (they are both polysaccharides) to make it worth a try.

I diluted the cellulase (Novozymes ‘Celluclast’) 1+99 with tap water at room temperature. (So you only need a very small amount, and I re-used 100 ml of dilute solution repeatedly over a week or so, storing it in the fridge between times.)

I immersed the (unmounted) slides and after a couple of minutes soaking, I very gently rubbed both surfaces with my fingers. (I did this after washing the dishes by hand, to make sure my hands were clean and grease-free!) It was immediately apparent that the slide was coming cleaner. I left the slides soaking for a further 5 minutes, rubbed them very gently again, then decanted off the dilute cellulase. I rinsed the slides thoroughly in tap water to remove floating debris. Then as a precaution against re-infection, I gave the slides a final rinse in Tetenal’s Mirasol wetting agent, which includes an anti-fungal component. I dried the slides emulsion-side up on absorbent paper.

I attach images of the same slide before and after treatment. You can see that there is still some debris on the treated slide, but the task of digital retouching is vastly reduced compared with pre-treatment. Nothing else seems to be affected, and there is no sign of the emulsion being eaten away or tunnelled by the fungus. There are no scratches caused by handling, either.

It seems a little odd that this works, because at least some saprophytic fungi produce cellulase themselves, in order to break down the plant structures they feed upon; so you’d have thought they’d be immune to its effects. Furthermore, ‘Celluclast’ is prepared from a fungus! But while it would clearly be nice to understand, it’s not strictly necessary, given that this really did work. If, like me, you have treasured images that seem beyond hope, this is definitely worth a try.
Scan-160929-0001 sm.JPG
Scan-161012-0001 sm.JPG
Scan-160929-0001 detail.JPG
Scan-161012-0001 detail.JPG
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Interesting approach.

But... encymes are very specific. Though the same chemical bound you refer to is contained in the polymers chitin consists of I am doubtful it will work. There are several specific encymes for the linkages within the chitin polymers.

Cellulase instead will attack the acetate-base too. Though of course the sheer mass of material in the base will yield a difference for the attack.
 

Athiril

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
3,062
Location
Tokyo
Format
Medium Format
I have suggested to someone before letting their film sit in warm Flexicolor Stabiliser IIII which contains formalin. They said the fungus simply disappeared after some time.
 
OP
OP

Jonathan R

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
86
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Interesting approach.

But... encymes are very specific. Though the same chemical bound you refer to is contained in the polymers chitin consists of I am doubtful it will work. There are several specific encymes for the linkages within the chitin polymers.

Cellulase instead will attack the acetate-base too. Though of course the sheer mass of material in the base will yield a difference for the attack.

Well, you can theorise all you like, but as you can see, it did work, and the film base (acetate?) and emulsion (gelatine) were fine.
 

pdeeh

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
4,765
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
Well, you can theorise all you like, but as you can see, it did work, and the film base (acetate?) and emulsion (gelatine) were fine.

no need to be defensive.

as you yourself point out, you have no idea what is going on at the molecular level, and without microscopy (at the very least) you can't comment about the impact of your treatment on any of the components of the film and image.

we can't doubt the appearance (clearer, less or no fungus) but the mechanical botanical and chemical outcomes are unclear to say the least.

come back in 10 or 20 years and let's have a look at the negatives again then :wink:
 
Last edited:

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Well, you can theorise all you like, but as you can see, it did work, and the film base (acetate?) and emulsion (gelatine) were fine.

All we can see is that those threads got removed.
You cannot say whether the fungus was removed completely nor how it was removed. To say something about the latter several different kind of solutions have had to be applied to say that some potion did the trick and others not.
 
OP
OP

Jonathan R

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
86
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
All we can see is that those threads got removed.
You cannot say whether the fungus was removed completely nor how it was removed. To say something about the latter several different kind of solutions have had to be applied to say that some potion did the trick and others not.

OK, I did not do a control using plain tap-water; but you could do that yourself.

Sorry to sound defensive, but I'm rankled by your negativity. I really don't mind if you don't follow this procedure, though I hope someone finds the knowledge useful. This procedure restored slides sufficiently that retouching the scanned image was a viable proposition. It doesn't matter to me if the slides now disintegrate (though they may not). It's the image, not the little piece of film, that interests me. The images are now digital files, and enjoyable for a while longer. I am not trying to preserve them in the fossil record, but if I did nothing they would effectively be already lost.
 

pdeeh

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
4,765
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
there's no negativity involved. being clear about what something is or isn't is not negativity.

it might matter to others who want to conserve their negatives that the negatives do not disintegrate.

if it turns out your method irreparably damages negatives, and someone else wants to clean but preserve theirs, then a discussion on the potential shortcomings is rather important regardless of whether you don't care about your negatives. or your sensitivity to others' perceived "negativity".
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
OK, I did not do a control using plain tap-water; but you could do that yourself.

Sorry to sound defensive, but I'm rankled by your negativity. I really don't mind if you don't follow this procedure, though I hope someone finds the knowledge useful. This procedure restored slides sufficiently that retouching the scanned image was a viable proposition. It doesn't matter to me if the slides now disintegrate (though they may not). It's the image, not the little piece of film, that interests me. The images are now digital files, and enjoyable for a while longer. I am not trying to preserve them in the fossil record, but if I did nothing they would effectively be already lost.

What negativity? I even said that it is a interesting approach.

-) In your first post you did not indicate that it is for you just about regaining the image as such and not of restoring the material integrity if the image.

-) You elaborated on the theoretical backgrond of your trial yourself, but accuse me of theorizing.


I expect others chime in who have fungus attacked films they cleaned better with your approach than with other attempst.
Maybe a biochemist will comment too.
 

georg16nik

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
1,101
Format
Multi Format
Fungus, tap water...
No need fr biochemist, the OP is quite a humorist.
 
OP
OP

Jonathan R

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
86
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
there's no negativity involved. being clear about what something is or isn't is not negativity.
What negativity? I even said that it is a interesting approach.

Been away for a bit, so I missed these replies when first posted. Honestly, chaps, I'm not bothered; but don't you think
I am doubtful it will work.
was a teensy bit negative, especially as I posted visual evidence that the fungal threads were in fact removed.:smile:
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom