Mixing from Powder, Safety and Disposal

[pentaxuser]

If you are using the store bought pouches, emptying them while submerged is a really good approach.

The next door neighbour called Clarence Henry does that. No prizes for guessing his middle name

pentaxuser

 

[PFGS]

The next door neighbour called Clarence Henry does that. No prizes for guessing his middle name

pentaxuser

Frogman?

But to answer your earlier inquiry, why am I comfortable with Xtol?

1. I've done it a few times, see above remarks on being comfortable with what we are used to
2. It has a reputation as being relatively non-toxic
3. I've never made the mistake of freaking myself out by reading its MSDS
4. I'm no more consistent than any other human.

 

[GLS]

The main hazard when working with solids (and fine powders in particular) is inhalation, but even then there are ways of handling them to avoid the solids becoming airborne too much. You can wear a dust mask whilst making up the solutions if you feel the need. You could also mix up the solutions outside for added safety. It also goes without saying that you should wear disosable gloves when doing any developing.

In an ideal world all of this stuff would be done in a fully extracted fume hood, but of course that is an impossibility for most people.

When all is said and done though I wouldn't worry overly much reading MSDS files for these ingredients, as they are written to be as cautious and comprehensive as possible. No ingredient of a commercial developer is going to be highly dangerous, as they have to account for people handling them without any protection. For comparison read the MSDS for simple cleaning agents like bleach or methanol; sound pretty bad don't they?

 

[removed account4]

• It has a reputation as being relatively non-toxic

it is only said to be non toxic because it is made with vit c.. not sure the other components are any less ( or more ) toxic than anything else.
personally I wouldn't use Xtol if it was paid, unless I was given ansco130 or dektol (d72 ) to spike it with. I'd rather use ( and have used ) caffenol C since between 2006 and 2008, as my primary film developer. it is completely non toxic ( coffee, washing soda and vit c ) and works great in any condition. I mix about 1 gallon at a time, use my own sumatran robusta beans I roast myself, and spike it with about 15-20cc of a130/d72 ( whichever I have on hand ) / 8oz... it lasts for about 6 months without replenishment and I've gotten hundreds of rolls of film / sheets of film ( color as well as black and white ) and prints and paper negatives through it, never an issue, scans well and. prints like a dream. when I mix "new". I leave about 1/2 the container and put in 1/2 gallon ...

easy to mix inside with no vapor mask, and once you start using it often you don't even notice the foul stench.

 

[AgX]

It also goes without saying that you should wear disosable gloves when doing any developing.

Well, when most of started, no one said so. For sure not Tetetenal etc.
I would not even know where to get disposable gloves back then. One had to resort to household gloves. I even bought long-cuff chem-industry Nitrile ones. Though I used them for cases when actually dipping hands into chemicals. Not at such seemingly benigne case as making a working solution from a concentrate. My mishap was of the sort "a thousand times it went fine".

At chemical class we were ordered to wear safety goggles when handling Methanol, as it "is known to cause blindness"...

So much for lab safety.

 

[GLS]

Well, when most of started, no one said so. For sure not Tetetenal etc.
I would not even know where to get disposable gloves back then. One had to resort to household gloves. I even bought long-cuff chem-industry Nitrile ones. Though I used them for cases when actually dipping hands into chemicals. Not at such seemingly benigne case as making a working solution from a concentrate. My mishap was of the sort "a thousand times it went fine".

At chemical class we were ordered to wear safety goggles when handling Methanol, as it "is known to cause blindness"...

So much for lab safety.

Safety standards have gotten more strict compared with decades ago. Personally I think gloves should be worn when handling any chemical solutions, especially aqueous ones as those can easily be absorbed into your skin. Thicker washing up type gloves will also be fine for protection, but you lose a huge amount of dexterity and sense of touch; for sure they will be near useless for actually handling films (loading holders or development tanks for e.g.) when compared with the thin nitriles. I find it is also easier to drop wet glassware when wearing the thicker gloves.

Safety glasses won't do any harm to use either, although personally I think it is overkill for film development. On the topic of methanol and blindness though, I'm afraid to say your instructors didn't know what they were talking about, as just getting a tiny amount splashed into your eyes cannot cause this; rather you have to ingest a relatively large quantity of it to induce permanent damage to the optic nerve. FYI it is not methanol itself which causes this, but one of its metabolic products (formic acid).

 

[pentaxuser]

Frogman?

But to answer your earlier inquiry, why am I comfortable with Xtol?

1. I've done it a few times, see above remarks on being comfortable with what we are used to
2. It has a reputation as being relatively non-toxic
3. I've never made the mistake of freaking myself out by reading its MSDS
4. I'm no more consistent than any other human.

Quite right. Never knew why it was Frogman. On the 4 reasons in answer to my question, thanks. They seem good reasons which I suspect that in the case of pre-mixed powdered chemicals could be applied to a lot of others as well as Xtol. My impression is that whenever there is a thread on darkroom safety/precautions and there m have been a lot on my 15 years here, there may just be a tendency to, dare I say it, overreact

pentaxuser

 

[PFGS]

I'd rather use ( and have used ) caffenol C since between 2006 and 2008, as my primary film developer.

I spent a lot of time a few years ago with several caffenol variants, and though I've seen it work really well for a lot of people (and didn't mind the smell), I was never happy with the results I got.

 

[AgX]

On the topic of methanol and blindness though, I'm afraid to say your instructors didn't know what they were talking about, as just getting a tiny amount splashed into your eyes cannot cause this; rather you have to ingest a relatively large quantity of it to induce permanent damage to the optic nerve.

It was said by a student-teacher during her practical training... and we knew that she was telling us nonsense. Well, imagine a girl teacher, at a boys school, telling nonsense and running around with full-enclosure lab-goggles. Of course she was the joke of the day...
Added by the fact that she was the first hinting at safety precausions at our training.

 

[grat]

If you are using the store bought pouches, emptying them while submerged is a really good approach.

Emptying while submerged? What, do you do it in a swimming pool?

I cut a reasonably small opening, pour slowly, preferably into a wide-mouth container such as a beaker, and always add to water, instead of the other way. If I need to measure dry chemicals, I do it by weight with a scale with a tare function-- and again, pour (or scoop) slowly. And don't do it in a cross-wind.

I know I have a decent science background, but most of this is basic lab skills, which to me has always meant be deliberate, be careful, and use common sense. This isn't like playing with 18 molar sulfuric acid, or handling pure sodium-- these are pretty stable chemicals with low volatility. They can be caustic and/or poisonous, but only if badly handled.

Having said all that, I usually write out all the steps, with ingredients, in order, before I start, and then follow the recipe. I even do the same thing when developing, because I'm still a novice enough that I'm likely to do a step wrong, or out of order, otherwise.

 

[grat]

It was said by a student-teacher during her practical training... and we knew that she was telling us nonsense.

It wasn't totally nonsense-- I'd hate to get it in my eyes. Further, vision can be severely affected (including blindness)-- but that's only once it's been metabolized, which suggests you drank it.

 

[removed account4]

I spent a lot of time a few years ago with several caffenol variants, and though I've seen it work really well for a lot of people (and didn't mind the smell), I was never happy with the results I got.

I never used any other variant than eyeball measured teaspoon caffenol using brewed coffee instead of instant and the dash of print developer. it seems that all the variants and precise measuring of the kitchen cupboard ingredients had people wander away from what the whole point of the developer was, to use easy to find materials to process one's film ( or paper ). sorry you didn't like your results, I can't complain about mine ( and helped write the caffenol cookbook . ). I have similar troubles with x tol, people get great results mine were .. less than good ( used it for years trying to get it to work ).
as with everything on the interweb. YMMVFTSITWINCATD

 

[MattKing]

Emptying while submerged? What, do you do it in a swimming pool?

This works with foil or plastic bag packages.
Cut off the corner, leaving a reasonably sized opening.
Submerge the opening in the water and keep it there until you are finished.
Pour as much of the powder as you can while the opening is submerged.
As the remaining powder starts clumping up, start filling the bag with water so that you transform from pouring to filling, sloshing and rinsing.
While still keeping the opening submerged, slosh the water into and around the inside of the package until all the powder is rinsed into the solution.
If you keep a small amount of water back, you can do one final rinse of the bag.
Easier to do then describe!

 

[grat]

Easier to do then describe!

Oh, I understand the method-- I was mostly being facetious when I suggested you were in a swimming pool.

Regardless, it's a lot of complication-- much easier to pour a small amount, mix, pour more, mix, and repeat until it's all mixed. You'll get a more consistent result. Your method with the Blix B packet, for instance, would result in a horrific mess, as that needs to be mixed slowly.

 

[PhilBurton]

Yes and no... when working with fluids just by manner of working even without any safety devices one can pretty good control where the chemical gets. With powders that is much less the case. (And this is the point of this thread.)

Duly noted. But here is a different perspective. Xtol has been out for at least 20 years now. Would Kodak have ever released this product in powder form if it created an undue hazard? If people mixing up Xtol liquid experienced nasty side effects, would Kodak not have removed the product from the market, or reformulated it? I agree that common sense protection is necessary, but that doesn't mean I should be paranoid.

 

[AgX]

No, one should not go paranoid.

But as said "with fluids ... one can pretty good control where the chemical gets". But I also said that nevertheless I had a nasty experience ... "pretty good" seems not good enough.
Moreover I was surprised by the effect, I did not expect that.

 

[reddesert]

I think most of the veterans here know this but the OP probably doesn't:
Some traditional developers use ingredients (hydroquinone in particular) that can cause contact dermatitis. It doesn't happen to everybody, and the amount that it takes varies a lot from person to person. It is unlikely that getting stray drops of D-76 on your fingers will trigger it, but dipping your hands in developer day-after-day while tray developing or printing in a darkroom is a greater hazard.

This is one reason why Kodak developed vitamin C developers such as Xtol, to get rid of the HQ. The other ingredients in Xtol are pretty much standard developer ingredients like phenidone, sodium sulfite, and an alkali - no safer or less safe in Xtol than in most other commercial developers. You shouldn't drink or breathe this stuff (or rub it on your scalp, even if it is similar to a hair bleach), but it isn't highly toxic.

Stop bath and many fixers are acidic, but not at the level where you'd get a chemical burn from touching it. (IIRC, you are supposed to be careful with the concentrated part B of Kodak rapid fixer, but gloves and glasses should be good enough.)

There are other photo chemicals that really are potentially hazardous, but they would not usually be used by a beginner (eg selenium toner and some older developer ingredients).

Ironically, one of the most likely ingredients to cause trouble in mixing your own chemicals is sodium hydroxide (lye), which is something you can buy at the market. But again, not the first chemical a beginner would use.

For disposal, probably the worst thing a hobbyist has to dispose is the silver in used fixer. There are silver recovery units or techniques for precipitating it out.

If you want to know more about the chemicals used in photography, a good book is "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell.

 

[Donald Qualls]

But seriously, look at the ingredients of Clairol Nice'n'Easy that you can buy at any supermarket or drugstore: https://www.clairol.com/m/master/products/new_ingredients_pdfs/NNE_Ingredients-240620.pdf
I swear you could actually develop film in this stuff, especially if you added some more alkali.

Wow.

I copied out just one of those colors, a blonde one that presumably has less color to it than some: I count five probable developing agents (three for certain: ascorbic acid, m-aminophenol, and p-aminophenol, plus two phenylenediamine derivatives), sodium sulfite, and sodium hydroxide, along with a bunch of other stuff that presumably keeps it from burning the hair off at the scalp line (usually). I don't think you'd have to add anything but water to make a film developer, though I'm strongly inclined to expect it to stain...

 

[grat]

Not surprising. Most women color their hair, and wait to see what develops.

... sorry.

 

[mshchem]

3M makes very affordable and effective respirators. Good for particulates, organic and mild acidic vapors. There's a safety system we all, our nose. Sulfides, acids, etc. are suffocating, I won't stand there and breathe them. I mix XTOL, Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, Ilford Bromophen from powders. An occasional batch of F6 fixer. Allergic reactions are something to be wary of. Some folks can't tolerate certain chemicals like Metol and various common color ingredients. If you are allergic best to steer clear.

 

[AgX]

Ironically, one of the most likely ingredients to cause trouble in mixing your own chemicals is sodium hydroxide (lye), which is something you can buy at the market. But again, not the first chemical a beginner would use.

Which routinely (and more often than in darkrooms) is used in households for cleaning/unclogging drains. There was a related accident in my own family.

 

[Donald Qualls]

No arguments that lye (used in solution for adjusting pH and as a main ingredient if you mix your own Parodinal) is one of the most immediately hazardous darkroom chemicals. The only other ones that come at all close are glacial acetic acid, an sulfuric/potassium dichromate B&W reversal bleach (or the sulfuric acid used to mix it, since the formula calls for the concentrated variety even though 30% as used in batteries works fine with a suitable correction to the water in the formula).

Then again, you can work in a darkroom for years and never handle any of those -- even glacial acetic acid. Stop bath concentrate is 28% strength, usually, and is much safer than glacial -- and there at least used to be a fairly strong movement away from acid stop bath, based on the idea that sharp pH changes may be bad for emulsion (those folks don't do a good job of explaining how to get precise development with an all-alkaline process, though).

Probably the only really unavoidable chemicals are thiosulfates (fixer) and sodium sulfite (preservative in almost everything). Both are pretty innocuous if you don't drink your solutions, and you can avoid sulfite if you mix your own one-shot fixer and choose a developer that doesn't have it (like Caffenol, PC-TEA, or some other ascorbate based developers -- and lots more if you mix immediately before use).

 

[AgX]

Some chemicals are even faded out as Dichromate over here. Thus not only restrictions/bans on sale etc. to consumers, but also on its commercial, industrial use.,

More is to come. Think of Hydroquinone.

 

[reddesert]

Wow.
I copied out just one of those colors, a blonde one that presumably has less color to it than some: I count five probable developing agents (three for certain: ascorbic acid, m-aminophenol, and p-aminophenol, plus two phenylenediamine derivatives), sodium sulfite, and sodium hydroxide, along with a bunch of other stuff that presumably keeps it from burning the hair off at the scalp line (usually). I don't think you'd have to add anything but water to make a film developer, though I'm strongly inclined to expect it to stain...

I thought you would appreciate those ingredient lists. Yes, most of the dyes are full of known developing agents and things that sound a lot like developing agents. Some of them even include other ingredients such as sodium sulfite!

These dyes come in three part kits: formula, activator, and conditioner. The formula has the reducing agents, the activator has hydrogen peroxide (so it must be the bleach) and various acids, and those are mixed before application. The conditioner is applied later and is similar to regular hair conditioners. I'm guessing that part 1 and some extra alkali if needed (pH test strips would be useful) could make a developer, while parts 2 and 3 are extraneous. I've been curious about this since discovering the ingredient lists, but haven't actually tried it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm guessing that part 1 and some extra alkali if needed (pH test strips would be useful) could make a developer, while parts 2 and 3 are extraneous.

Seems expensive for developer, though. I think the main value for our purposes is assurance that our developing agents aren't going to disappear any time soon. What I've been saying for more than fifteen years -- worst case, I wind up having to go the J. Lane route and make my own dry plates (from my reading, it's fairly easy to get ISO 25 in an ortho plate, which is good enough for almost all B&W applications) and mix my own chemicals from commonly available items. The "safety if it kills you" crowd might get rid of lye, eventually, but apparently I can make an acceptable (if slow) developer from beer (never mind coffee, mint, etc. -- and it doesn't have to be the fancy expensive beer with berry juice from Dogfish Head, Rainier works).

Even silver nitrate can be made from base chemicals, and nitric acid can start with stump remover...