Ilfotec DD-X formula?

[Relayer]

Hello

I found Ilford patent US5210010 with PQ formula very similar to MSDS DD-X. Also this formula have same dilution and pH as DD-X. What do you think about this?

Potassium Sulphite 65% 548ml
Water 380ml
Glycol 45ml
Hydroquinone 44g
Phenidone 1.2g
Borax 23.5g
DAPTA 4.8g

dilute 1+4, pH=8.5

 

[Rudeofus]

If you look at the MSDS, Ilford seems to use DTPA instead of DAPTA in their product. Which is good because DTPA is much easier to get and cheaper ...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is no guarantee that this formula is anything like DD-X. Patents often contain such formulas as proof of a particular concept. Companies may try various methods of obfuscation and may even leave out important ingredients.

 

[albada]

My understanding is DDX is buffered (Borax-Boric acid).

Due to an obscure fact of chemistry, it turns out that the formula posted by Relayer is buffered, because Borax itself is buffered. When mixed into water, Borax forms the equivalent of Boric acid, thus becoming its own buffer. So Borax is self-buffering. That's why Borax is often used to calibrate pH-meters. Now, whether that formula is close to DD-X is anyone's guess.

EDIT 1: Rudeofus prefers DTPA. Interestingly, the patent says "The preferred sequestering agent is [...] DTPA." So why didn't they use it in their sample formula?

EDIT 2: Looking into this some more, I see that the MSDS for DD-X specifies (1) Boric acid (Michael R mentioned this), (2) Dimezone S instead of Phenidone, and (3) DTPA instead of DAPTA. So I'd say the patent was for an early formula which the engineers improved later. Based on quantity-ranges in the MSDS, I'd say this is similar to DD-X. Given this patent-formula and the MSDS, it wouldn't be hard to reverse engineer the present formula. Anyone want to try it?

Mark Overton

 

[Relayer]

Sequestering agent isn't so important part of formula from patent. More interesting that developer omit any antifoggant (KBr, BZT etc)

working solution 1+4 must be like to next:

Potassium Sulphite 71g
Hydroquinone 8.8g
Phenidone 0.25g
Borax 4.7g

71g of Potassium Sulphite = 71/MW(K2SO3) = 71/156.26 = 0.4544M = 0.4544*MW(Na2SO3) = 0.4544*126.04 = 57.3g of Sodium Sulphite

 

[Ian Grant]

EDIT 2: Looking into this some more, I see that the MSDS for DD-X specifies (1) Boric acid (Michael R mentioned this), (2) Dimezone S instead of Phenidone, and (3) DTPA instead of DAPTA. So I'd say the patent was for an early formula which the engineers improved later. Based on quantity-ranges in the MSDS, I'd say this is similar to DD-X. Given this patent-formula and the MSDS, it wouldn't be hard to reverse engineer the present formula. Anyone want to try it?

Mark Overton

The switch from Phenidone to Dimezon S in Ilford liquid developers seems to co-incide with the change in sub-contractors producing Ilfords chemistry.

Older MSDS data for these developers is very much more informative, they show that Phenidone was used originally in DDX.

Ian

 

[Rudeofus]

Sequestering agent isn't so important part of formula from patent. More interesting that developer omit any antifoggant (KBr, BZT etc)

Be careful with that statement. Most common sequestering agents buffer in the pH range and DTPA is no exception (see page 6). Choosing a different sequestering agent can give you a different pH and buffer strength! Also note that the patent lists DTPA, while the MSDS lists DTPA pentasodium salt, the first one is a strong acid while the latter one is caustic (and much easier to dissolve). If pH is suitably chosen there is a good chance that no restrainer is needed.

 

[Relayer]

Be careful with that statement. Most common sequestering agents buffer in the pH range and DTPA is no exception (see page 6). Choosing a different sequestering agent can give you a different pH and buffer strength! Also note that the patent lists DTPA, while the MSDS lists DTPA pentasodium salt, the first one is a strong acid while the latter one is caustic (and much easier to dissolve). If pH is suitably chosen there is a good chance that no restrainer is needed.

Yes, you right. If we omit DTPA or change it to other agent we need correct (decrease) amount of borax for required pH=8.5. This isn't a provlem

 

[Rudeofus]

Yes, you right. If we omit DTPA or change it to other agent we need correct (decrease) amount of borax for required pH=8.5. This isn't a provlem

It's not only about pH, it's also about buffer strength! DTPA is a buffer at pH 8.5, if if we use less Borax in order to compensate for omission of DTPA, we create a much weaklier buffered developer.

 

[Relayer]

It's not only about pH, it's also about buffer strength! DTPA is a buffer at pH 8.5, if if we use less Borax in order to compensate for omission of DTPA, we create a much weaklier buffered developer.

hmm ... may be. but I think that amount of DTPA relatively low for change buffer capacity.

 

[Rudeofus]

hmm ... may be. but I think that amount of DTPA relatively low for change buffer capacity.

That dev isn't exactly loaded with Borax either ...

 

[john_s]

The Australian MSDS documents often contain more detail. For what it's worth, here is an extract from it:

2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS:
NAME
CAS No.: EINECS Nr.:


2,2'-OXYBISETHANOL (Diethylene glycol)
111-46-6 203-872-2
5-10 %

HYDROQUINONE
123-31-9 204-617-8
1-5 %

1-PHENYL-4-METHYL-4-HYDROXYMETHYL-3-PYRAZOLIDONE (Dimezone-S)
13047-13-7 235-920-3
0-1 %

DIETHYLENETRIAMINE PENTAACETIC ACID NA5
67-43-6 200-652-8
1-5 %

SODIUM TETRABORATE
1330-43-4 215-540-4
1-5 %

BORIC ACID
10043-35-3 233-139-2
1-5 %

WATER
30-60 %

POTASSIUM SULPHITE
10117-38-1
30-60 %


DENSITY/SPECIFIC GRAVITY (g/ml): 1.31 Temperature (°C): 20

pH-VALUE, CONC. SOLUTION: 8.7

 

[Alain Deloc]

The Australian MSDS documents often contain more detail. For what it's worth, here is an extract from it:

2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS:
NAME
CAS No.: EINECS Nr.:


2,2'-OXYBISETHANOL (Diethylene glycol)
111-46-6 203-872-2
5-10 %

HYDROQUINONE
123-31-9 204-617-8
1-5 %

1-PHENYL-4-METHYL-4-HYDROXYMETHYL-3-PYRAZOLIDONE (Dimezone-S)
13047-13-7 235-920-3
0-1 %

DIETHYLENETRIAMINE PENTAACETIC ACID NA5
67-43-6 200-652-8
1-5 %

SODIUM TETRABORATE
1330-43-4 215-540-4
1-5 %

BORIC ACID
10043-35-3 233-139-2
1-5 %

WATER
30-60 %

POTASSIUM SULPHITE
10117-38-1
30-60 %


DENSITY/SPECIFIC GRAVITY (g/ml): 1.31 Temperature (°C): 20

pH-VALUE, CONC. SOLUTION: 8.7

Hi there,
How can those percents can be translated in grams, as a formula?

 

[dokko]

How can those percents can be translated in grams, as a formula?

considering that the range specified is rather broad it would be of limited use, but the general principle would go roughly like this:

the MSDS looks to be for the chemical as a concentrated solution, so let's say 1 liter. luckily it also lists the density, so 1 liter will weight 1310g. so to get grams from the percentages, it's 1310g/100*percentage, i.e.


2,2'-OXYBISETHANOL (Diethylene glycol)
111-46-6
5-10 %
= 65,5 - 131 g

HYDROQUINONE
123-31-9
1-5 %
= 13,1 - 65,5 g

1-PHENYL-4-METHYL-4-HYDROXYMETHYL-3-PYRAZOLIDONE (Dimezone-S)
13047-13-7
0-1 %
= 0 - 13,1 g

DIETHYLENETRIAMINE PENTAACETIC ACID NA5
67-43-6
1-5 %
= 13,1 - 65,5 g

SODIUM TETRABORATE
1330-43-4
1-5 %
= 13,1 - 65,5 g

BORIC ACID
10043-35-3
1-5 %
= 13,1 - 65,5 g

WATER
30-60 %
393 - 786 g (or ml)

POTASSIUM SULPHITE
10117-38-1
30-60 %
393 - 786 g


now since developer formulas are finely tuned it's usually much easier to use a well published formula rather than trying to figure out the optimal balance from the rough info above.

as a side note, this seems to explain why they used potassium sulfite rather than sodium sulfite, as from what I've read it would be hard to get it into solution at this concentration.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you want to do some minimal searching: DD-X is disclosed in a patent where its (claimed to be superior) properties are discussed vis-a-vis HC/ HC-110 type developers. The reasoning for potassium sulphite is also given.

 

[Alain Deloc]

If you want to do some minimal searching: DD-X is disclosed in a patent where its (claimed to be superior) properties are discussed vis-a-vis HC/ HC-110 type developers. The reasoning for potassium sulphite is also given.

I am not sure where I can find this information.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Why are you trying to find it? Odds are that you cannot replicate it, because special manufacturing processes are involved. Just make up FX-37.

 

[Alain Deloc]

Why are you trying to find it? Odds are that you cannot replicate it, because special manufacturing processes are involved. Just make up FX-37.

Well, because DDX is equivalent with TMax Dev. TMax dev. is not anymore produced and I really like its shelf life. I had a 1L bottle of 1+4 for two years and even diluted it was working and developing just right. Also, I like the grain of TMax ( or DDX) and the shadow detail delivered. So, I was looking for something close to TMax and I found this thread on DDX. It happens that I have all chemicals involved in the formula from the first post (and also from the australian MSDS formula) so I thought I might ask for more details

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Hello

I found Ilford patent US5210010 with PQ formula very similar to MSDS DD-X. Also this formula have same dilution and pH as DD-X. What do you think about this?

Potassium Sulphite 65% 548ml
Water 380ml
Glycol 45ml
Hydroquinone 44g
Phenidone 1.2g
Borax 23.5g
DAPTA 4.8g

dilute 1+4, pH=8.5

Probably a forerunner leading up to Ilfotec DD/DDX rather than the actual formula of the product sold by Ilford.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Well, because DDX is equivalent with TMax Dev. TMax dev. is not anymore produced and I really like its shelf life. I had a 1L bottle of 1+4 for two years and even diluted it was working and developing just right. Also, I like the grain of TMax ( or DDX) and the shadow detail delivered.

Tmax developer is very good with Delta 3200, I used this combination to take photos inside of some of the National Trust properties in the UK and the negatives printed nicely.

 

[miha]

I'm afraid there is no way to come out with DDX using the above data alone.

 

[Alain Deloc]

Tmax developer is very good with Delta 3200, I used this combination to take photos inside of some of the National Trust properties in the UK and the negatives printed nicely.

Indeed is a great developer. I used it only 1+4 and working solution had a very good shelf life. I was wondering if 1+7 or 1+9 has the same shelf life.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Probably a forerunner leading up to Ilfotec DD/DDX rather than the actual formula of the product sold by Ilford.

The developer formulae disclosed in the patent is likely to be very, very close to DD (it talks about replenishment) - this patent and a few others from Ilford in the same era (on ascorbates) look like they are defensive against what became Xtol. The main differences are likely only in the buffer (and the addenda to make DD-X - essentially a one-shot that performs much like seasoned DD). What is significant is that Tmax developer used the same adduct as HC-110 (but not, from recall, in a totally non-aqueous formulation), while Ilford clearly found that, in what was supposed to be a fine-grain developer, the alkanolamine adduct was not delivering the desired characteristics - there are other patients from the same time that look at using other alkanolamines to solve the same problem.

Just make up FX-37.

Crawley was not operating at the level of Kodak/ Ilford/ Agfa/ Fuji research - he more-or-less ended up in a somewhat correct place probably because he was eventually fairly firmly nudged in that direction by his industry contacts (once the relevant knowledge was not as commercially sensitive).

 

[MattKing]

TMax dev. is not anymore produced and I really like its shelf life.

It appears that the new US based holder for the license to make and sell Kodak branded photo chemicals will be supplying T-Max developer again. They were actually, beginning in 2019, the ones doing the contract manufacturing of most of the Kodak black and white photo chemicals for Kodak Alaris (initially) and then Sino Promise.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

It appears that the new US based holder for the license to make and sell Kodak branded photo chemicals will be supplying T-Max developer again. They were actually, beginning in 2019, the ones doing the contract manufacturing of most of the Kodak black and white photo chemicals for Kodak Alaris (initially) and then Sino Promise.

I can confirm that Sino Promise had officially shut down production at their factory in Wuxi, China and I bought a 5L bottle of TMAX-RS they had in stock.