New HC-110 Formula

Tim Stapp said:

Any thoughts on the new formula's keeping properties? One of the features that I have always liked about HC 110 has been it's keeping property.

Click to expand...

This is a radical reformulation. The fingerprint technology of HC-110 -- the use of a DEA-sulfur addition product (originally patented by Kodak Harrow) to provide accelerator and sulfite in a highly stable, water-free syrup, has been dispensed with. As a result, I doubt that stability -- which was a key feature of HC-110 -- will be anywhere near as high. I also cannot believe that results will be the same. The DEA-sulfur complex is a little hard to make, but Ilford and Tetenal have both managed to do it. I can't think why this formula would be changed so radically. For a less major change, see the MSDS of 02-2019, where the complex is made with methylethanolamine instead of DEA. More detail in FDC 2nd edition, which should be out by the end of the year. This isn't any longer HC-110 and I suggest it should be referred to as Neo-HC-110 or HC-110 2019 to distinguish it from the previously known product. The pyrocatechin is an interesting constant. It has been suggested to me that the reason for it may be related to a certain process for manufacturing HQ.I suspect it is there for other reasons.

The MSDS aren't copyrighted, so to avoid the vagaries of Kodak's and Kodak Alaris's redirect behavior, here are old and new HC-110 MSDS attached.

Grim Tuesday posted above that he now sees an MSDS with a revision date of tomorrow, and it is different from the one he saw earlier (presumably the June 2019 revision date one).

Here is the "other" MSDS sheet I got about an hour ago when I clicked the link from my post on my phone.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-CRhh_-U9cpS3HCfmFNq4oXbQpRB0HOF/view?usp=sharing

The revision date is earlier, but the issue date is later. Sorry for the confusion on that, I mixed up revision and issue date.

Now, when I click the link from my phone or computer I get the same MSDS from last night, the one that Oren has posted and Ian has copied.

This is the Canadian MSDS list of Components:
3. Composition/information on ingredients Mixtures Chemical name Common name and synonyms CAS number % Hydroquinone 123-31-9 10 - < 20 Potassium sulphite 10117-38-1 10 - < 20 Sodium Borate 12179-04-3 1 - < 3 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl- 13047-13-7 3-pyrazolidinone 0.1 - 1 Diethanolamine 111-42-2 0.1 - 1 All concentrations are in percent by weight. Chemical ranges are provided in lieu of exact percentages, which are withheld as trade secrets.
This is the US MSDS list of Components:
3. Composition/information on ingredients Mixtures Chemical name Common name and synonyms CAS number % Hydroquinone 123-31-9 10 - < 20 Potassium sulphite 10117-38-1 10 - < 20 Diethylene glycol 111-46-6 5 - < 10 Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate 12179-04-3 1 - < 3 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl- 13047-13-7 3-pyrazolidinone 0.1 - 1 Diethanolamine 111-42-2 0.1 - 1 Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 0.1 - 1 1,2-Benzenediol 120-80-9 0 - 1 All concentrations are in percent by weight. Chemical ranges are provided in lieu of exact percentages, which are withheld as trade secrets.
This is the UK MSDS list of Components:
SECTION 3: Composition/information on ingredients 3.2. Mixtures General information Chemical name % CAS-No. / EC No. REACH Registration No. Index No. Notes Classification: Acute Tox. 4;H302, Skin Sens. 1;H317, Eye Dam. 1;H318, Muta. 2;H341, Carc. 2;H351, Aquatic Acute 1;H400(M=10) Hydroquinone 123-31-9 - 604-005-00-4 204-617-8 10 - < 20 Classification: Skin Irrit. 2;H315, Aquatic Chronic 3;H412 Potassium sulphite 10117-38-1 - - 233-321-1 10 - < 20 Classification: Acute Tox. 4;H302, STOT RE 2;H373 Diethylene glycol 111-46-6 01-2119457857-21-0132 603-140-00-6 203-872-2 5 - < 10 Classification: Acute Tox. 4;H312, Acute Tox. 1;H330, Repr. 1B;H360D, Repr. 1B;H360F Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate 12179-04-3 - 005-011-02-9 215-540-4 1 - < 3 Classification: Acute Tox. 4;H302, Skin Sens. 1;H317, Eye Irrit. 2;H319, Aquatic Chronic 2;H411 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3- - pyrazolidinone 13047-13-7 - 235-920-3 < 1 Material name: KODAK HC-110 Developer SDS UK 1058692 Version #: 01 Issue date: 21-May-2019 2 / 10 Chemical name % CAS-No. / EC No. REACH Registration No. Index No. Notes Classification: Acute Tox. 4;H302, Skin Corr. 1A;H314, Eye Dam. 1;H318 Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 - 019-002-00-8 215-181-3 < 1 List of abbreviations and symbols that may be used above #: This substance has been assigned Union workplace exposure limit(s). M: M-factor PBT: persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substance. vPvB: very persistent and very bioaccumulative substance. All concentrations are in percent by weight unless ingredient is a gas. Gas concentrations are in percent by volume
Sorry about the lack of formatting.
You will note that there are differences - most likely due to the differences in regulatory formats.

I post this to highlight the difficulties in using MSDS information to make definitive observations about these issues.

Grim Tuesday said:

Here is the "other" MSDS sheet I got about an hour ago when I clicked the link from my post on my phone.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-CRhh_-U9cpS3HCfmFNq4oXbQpRB0HOF/view?usp=sharing

The revision date is earlier, but the issue date is later. Sorry for the confusion on that, I mixed up revision and issue date.

Now, when I click the link from my phone or computer I get the same MSDS from last night, the one that Oren has posted and Ian has copied.

Click to expand...

Actually, the "Issue Date" in your link is three years ago tomorrow - 2016, not 2019.

MattKing said:

Actually, the "Issue Date" in your link is three years ago tomorrow - 2016, not 2019.

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, nice catch! Sorry for confusing everyone!

twelvetone12 said:

Anybody tried it yet? I was reading it is also less viscous and easier to pour.

Click to expand...

“Less viscous and easier to pour”: sounds like Ilfotec-HC to me.

markbau said:

The solution to pollution is dilution!

Click to expand...

If this isn't sarcasm, it deserves to be intensely ignored. That fallacious contention was disproved many decades ago.

Sal Santamaura said:

If this isn't sarcasm, it deserves to be intensely ignored. That fallacious contention was disproved many decades ago.

Click to expand...

Agree

markbau said:

The solution to pollution is dilution!

Click to expand...

Sal Santamaura said:

If this isn't sarcasm, it deserves to be intensely ignored. That fallacious contention was disproved many decades ago.

Click to expand...

There is one exception to this contention being wrong.
In a very few instances, the polluting damage is almost entirely due to the concentration, rather than the presence of the pollutant.
For example, NaCl that is first removed from the oceans, and then re-deposited.
In that case, dilution is the solution.

The original HC110 contained the adduct of HBr with TEA as well as the SO2 adduct of TEA. It contained few ionic species and was very stable. This new material is quite different IMHO and should not be called HC110. It may work the same, but it is not the same. Keeping of the syrup will be different, but working solutions should be the same for keeping.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

The original HC110 contained the adduct of HBr with TEA as well as the SO2 adduct of TEA. It contained few ionic species and was very stable. This new material is quite different IMHO and should not be called HC110. It may work the same, but it is not the same. Keeping of the syrup will be different, but working solutions should be the same for keeping.

PE

Click to expand...

I take this as permission granted to panic and buy another liter of old HC-110. Just don't let the eBay scalpers know, it will be worth $400/ a liter in 5 years.

It seems a weird (marketing?) choice to completely change the formula but keep the name. I suppose they didn't want to discontinue something in the era of discontinuing film products. But at the same time, if they really are discontinuing HC-110 as we know it, I think we deserve to know it. Even if it works the same at Dilution B, who is to know if it works the same "off label" at other dilutions, or how it changes with temperature and storage. Do you think it will really work the same at all?

One other possibility comes to mind. Perhaps this is temporary, the best they could do for now, and we will see the regular HC-110 return soon, and they didn't want to rock the boat in the meantime with a "supply shortage." I've emailed the photochemical department at Alaris asking about the change and if there will be a new datasheet. I will relay what I hear if they respond to me. Who knows, maybe this will finally lead to a decent time for Tri-X!

Grim Tuesday said:

Just don't let the eBay scalpers know, it will be worth $400/ a liter in 5 years.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly...

At first glance, this formula appears to be easier to make than the original, but it seems that it will have a similar impact on the environment. I would need more information to prove this though. I am just looking it over, and not making calculations or anything. Many formulas can be made to work identically to HC110, but few will have the same keeping properties for the concentrate. The hallmark was that HC110 had no water in it and few to no ionic species such as Potassium, Sodium and Borate.

Only time and tests will tell, but to quote the HHGTTG, "don't panic"!

PE

Since in my limited testing, the Legacy L110 worked just the same, if push comes to shove, I'll switch to it.

Photo Engineer said:

The original HC110 contained the adduct of HBr with TEA as well as the SO2 adduct of TEA. It contained few ionic species and was very stable. This new material is quite different IMHO and should not be called HC110. It may work the same, but it is not the same. Keeping of the syrup will be different, but working solutions should be the same for keeping.

PE

Click to expand...

Actually I agree. I remember when Kelloggs changed Special K cereal. This had to be in the early 70's I suppose. Originally it was a little round piece with a dip in the center. And it was my one my top 2 favorites. Then they changed it into a flake, somewhat smaller than a corn flake. The recipe was the same, but it was NOT Special K. Not by a long shot. It was awful. They may as well just retired the mane, or introduce another name and run both. That was the end of Special K. Same thing here. I defend Kodak's right to secrecy, but if you're going to change something, drop the name or run a 2nd product alongside the first. Every time I ever saw "New, Improved" on something, I had to translate it. "Do not buy".
I don't really have a dog in the fight, as all my developer is 7.5g metol +100g Sulfite, or 5,100,+30gNaCl if I want fine grain. Ill never understand companies changing things, when it was perfect before. Of course I'm a bit of a hard case. They only made the Camaro for 3 years--67,68,69. They used the name on other cars after that, but they were NOT a Camaro.
So much for my little rant on companies fouling up what works.

In the 70s it was global COOLING that was going to doom us all. Now it is global warming...er... I mean climate change due to pollution. Fifty years from now it will be whatever our kids decide is the threat of the day, so it's out of our control, anyway.

History is repetitive, not political. Use whatever developer you like.

MattKing said:

There is one exception to this contention being wrong.
In a very few instances, the polluting damage is almost entirely due to the concentration, rather than the presence of the pollutant.
For example, NaCl that is first removed from the oceans, and then re-deposited.
In that case, dilution is the solution.

Click to expand...

The next time I run across a photo chemical whose MSDS includes "sea salt" and plan to dispose of it in the ocean, I'll bear that in mind. Otherwise, dilution only affects how long a pollutant takes to accumulate in the environment.

Ariston said:

In the 70s it was global COOLING that was going to doom us all. Now it is global warming...er... I mean climate change due to pollution...

Click to expand...

It's global warming -- integrated over the surface of the planet -- and has been since long before the 1970s. And it is anthropogenic. And it's responsible for all manner of weather events being more severe, from drought to hurricanes to cold snaps to blizzards.

Ariston said:

...Fifty years from now it will be whatever our kids decide is the threat of the day, so it's out of our control, anyway...

Click to expand...

Fifty years from now it'll still be anthropogenic global warming, regardless of whatever those who still deny it decide to blame for the phenomenon. It has been in humanity's control from the start and continues to be.

Ariston said:

...Use whatever developer you like.

Click to expand...

Yes, and use it in an environmentally responsible manner without injecting politics into developer formulation threads outside the Soap Box.

I support the phrase "use whatever developer you like", but there is another corollary and that is "you can't judge it until you try it".

PE

For general information, diluted pollutants get concentrated as they move up the food chain...hence high mercury levels in fish.

Ariston -- you seem to be ignoring 50 years of scientific advancement and data collection. Also you are mistaken about scientist predicting an ice age in the 1970s. Over 60% of scientific papers at the time predicting global warming, 10% predicted cooling and the remainder were neutral. Global temperature records at the time were mostly from the northern hemisphere where there was a cooling trend, and when records could be gotten world-wide, it was found the earth over-all had no or little change in temperature in the decades prior to the 70s.

By 1980, it was only the media that still talked about the possibility of global cooling -- not the scientists.

Vaughn, you are correct, but HC110 is a "soft" pollutant using chemicals that degrade or that are merely a bit more concentrated than normal. And thus, the BOD and COD are high but there are no heavy metals (except for Borate which is toxic to citrus products). Thus, the chemicals are rather benign compared to your Mercury example. Even the manufacturing process is rather benign compared to some. The problem, IMHO, is expense or difficulty in doing it the old way.

I think, that in the face of a shrinking market, they made an economy version of HC110 as a work-alike.

PE

Agreed, not all pollutants get into the food chain.

That was my thought also about the changes in Kodak chemicals...cutting costs while still providing chemicals on a smaller scale.

If the new HC-110 will continue to work well over something like a two year period when the concentrate is stored in a half empty original container, the loss of legendary longevity will be sad, but not of much consequence to people who actually buy and use the stuff.
If the longevity is reduced to something like a couple of months when half empty, it will be much less desirable.