• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is Xtol Significantly Safer Than D-76?

Cut

D
Cut

  • 2
  • 0
  • 15
The Kite Surfer

A
The Kite Surfer

  • 4
  • 0
  • 39

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
201,951
Messages
2,832,570
Members
101,030
Latest member
kkiippyy
Recent bookmarks
0

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
Xtol is less apt to cause contact dermatitis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
Never used Xtol. I wonder if it tastes better than D-76..
 

dorff

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
443
Location
South Africa
Format
Multi Format
It is less toxic to fish and invertebrates as it contains no hydroquinone (a std ingredient of MQ and PQ developers) and no borate AFAIK. It doesn't contain metol, which is the culprit in darkroom dermatitis cases. Even so, it isn't fit for consumption.
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,806
Format
35mm RF
Xtol is for vegetarian photographers.
 

gone

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
I don't think you have anything to worry about with D76 unless you drink it. There would be a numberless amount of dead photographers if there were, considering how long it's been used in photography.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
Well, it's quite easy to read up on the active ingredients of XTOL and D76.

It's a well known fact that lab workers, in the old days, could develop problems with their skin or lungs or even get cancer. Today few people work in labs and health & safety awareness is much better.

I think XTOL produces better negatives than D76. And it's less harmful both to yourself and the environment, especially aquatic life.

Therefore, I would use XTOL even if it had been the other way around, ie. if D76 were the better developer.

As XTOL is better and safer, it's a win-win:smile:
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,357
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Well I don't think there is much if any evidence that since its inception D76 has had long-term ill-health consequences for the analogue community.

It is true that in recent forum years it may have increased the likelihood of repetitive strain injuries to fingers. Of course in terms of forum-years we may not yet know the health consequences of that seemingly innocent consumer good called the internet, anymore than we knew the consequences of the camel, the player, the woodbine etc. all those years ago when we all viewed such things as innocent fun :D

pentaxuser
 

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
The main thing is that the nanny state has over-sensitized and caused near-paranoia about most everything. D--76 is fine. So are all the other photochemicals. Some are kinda nasty, but for the most part these film and supply companies market a very safe product. I'm not worried one bit.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,835
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
From what I have read, yes XTOL is more environmentally safer.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,835
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
The main thing is that the nanny state has over-sensitized and caused near-paranoia about most everything. D--76 is fine. So are all the other photochemicals. Some are kinda nasty, but for the most part these film and supply companies market a very safe product. I'm not worried one bit.

The OP has a question that is legitimate for him. Do not put him down just because of you personal political agendas. We are here to ask questions and learn.
 
OP
OP
RattyMouse

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
The main thing is that the nanny state has over-sensitized and caused near-paranoia about most everything. D--76 is fine. So are all the other photochemicals. Some are kinda nasty, but for the most part these film and supply companies market a very safe product. I'm not worried one bit.

"Kinda nasty" is not a scientific term. My post was to try to learn more than this.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,273
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Any meaningful answer to your question needs to include something about volume.
If I am correctly guessing that the volume of your developing is such that have more concern about wasting chemicals because they spoil before you can use them (as compared to buying and using large quantities) than the answer is that neither developer is significantly safer because u need to use a lot of either before either will be unsafe.
This, of course, assumes you are using both normally and with reasonable care.
 

mrred

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
It's all relative. XTol less toxic than D76 and is much safer, considering the rest of the stuff in the dark room. I just would not feel like taking a bath in it either.
 
OP
OP
RattyMouse

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Any meaningful answer to your question needs to include something about volume.
If I am correctly guessing that the volume of your developing is such that have more concern about wasting chemicals because they spoil before you can use them (as compared to buying and using large quantities) than the answer is that neither developer is significantly safer because u need to use a lot of either before either will be unsafe.
This, of course, assumes you are using both normally and with reasonable care.

My volume is pretty low. I just want to have the least dangerous chemicals in my house. If Xtol is significantly less dangerous to human health than D-76, then that is a major plus in my eyes. On the other hand, HC-110 allows me to not stock large volumes of solution so that might be the way to go then.
 

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
Your reasons are your own. All the ordinary consumer-market chemicals are safer than most any household cleansers you might have. That, in a nutshell, is my "political agenda". Use your favorite photochemical in fun and good health.
 
OP
OP
RattyMouse

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Your reasons are your own. All the ordinary consumer-market chemicals are safer than most any household cleansers you might have. That, in a nutshell, is my "political agenda". Use your favorite photochemical in fun and good health.

Photographic chemicals are not consumer chemicals.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Xtol is safer to you and the environment, but may give less satisfactory results based on prior reports. It is a balancing act.

Have fun.

PE
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,273
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Safer in terms of carcinogenic, danger if 4 liters is spilled, and long lasting effects of residues left behind (no cleaning job is perfect).

The danger from one 4 litre spill in either case would be so small as to be un-measurable - with normal cleaning.

If you swallow or otherwise ingest either one, than the danger is real, but so similar as to be un-differentiable.

If you handle them in a reckless way, and do so regularly, over a significant length of time, involving a significant quantity of each of them, then X-Tol is most likely significantly less risky.

You are in far more danger when you fill your car at a gas station.
 
OP
OP
RattyMouse

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
The danger from one 4 litre spill in either case would be so small as to be un-measurable - with normal cleaning.

If you swallow or otherwise ingest either one, than the danger is real, but so similar as to be un-differentiable.

If you handle them in a reckless way, and do so regularly, over a significant length of time, involving a significant quantity of each of them, then X-Tol is most likely significantly less risky.

You are in far more danger when you fill your car at a gas station.

I'm not worried about eating these chemicals. I've been a chemist for 20 years and havent eaten a chemical yet. Nor do I worry about skin hazards as I wear chemically resistant gloves at all times while working. I do think that fumes are a concern as well as spills. If, god forbid, a 1 gallon container of D-76 were to spill in my house, it would spread over an ENORMOUS amount of area. Area that my kids play in every day. Cleaning up such a spill would NOT be 100% perfect. Some residue would be left behind.

In my mind, even better than Xtol might be HC110. Working with a smaller container, for me at least, I am less likely to spill. Plus the viscosity is so higher than the spread of a spill would be much less, and the clean up a bit easier. Of course, no spilling at all is best.

Oh, and I dont own a car. Havent for 4 years. Too dangerous to gas up!

:D
 
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