PCTEA anyone?

gainer · Mar 15, 2009

I left out the photography part. If I told you about that, I'd have to kill you. At least that 's what they told me while I was photographing the bolt holes during fatigue tests of a certain medium bomber.

I suppose this means you would not use HC-110. It doesn't stop at TEA. It goes all the way down to DEA compounds.

Photo Engineer · Mar 15, 2009

I use HC-110, but it goes in the darkroom at 68F not in the microwave or on the stove! I already said that though in a previous post.

And my unclassified military work is partly on display in my gallery. I carried my very own issued pistol to do just as you say in your post if it became necessary. I also carried Geneva convention ID in case of capture and 3 or 4 types of currency in case of going down "wherever". Again I say, so?

PE

AshenLight · Mar 16, 2009

Deep sigh... This certainly isn't where I intended this thread to go when I started it

Sadly yours,

Ash

Photo Engineer · Mar 16, 2009

Ash;

I agree. I must add that at Kodak, every 6 months or so we had to take chemical safety courses, fire prevention courses and also have regular bloodwork to test us for chemical uptake by our bodies. This was all safety related and for our good!

I am sensitive to this subject and want to earnestly promote this in the readership here on APUG so that we do not engender any potential criticism if such unsafe practices are promoted here! I'm sorry if this topic keeps coming up and keeps causing the same litany of pros and cons. Some people like to defend the opposite opinion.

I'm sorry, but I simply oppose use of kitchen equipment for darkroom chemistry. A kitchen is no place for chemicals! If you must, get separate equipment for the darkroom that does the job, but above all, do things safely. Having been in a number of fires in the lab even when being as safe as possible, I know how the unexpected can happen even when trying to anticipate it.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was trying to put forth an honest effort that I felt was my obligation as an experienced lab chemist and photographic engineer.

PE

Murray Kelly · Mar 16, 2009

As an old LTCOL (vietnam) I say, 'uhhh?' C'mon - get it back to the thread.
The only thing in a microwave oven that could ignite vapour is the on/off switch. Microwaves themselves are just heat waves. And very effective they are, too.
Does anyone have personal knowledge of an unfortunate outcome of warming TEA in a microwave oven? Theory is all very well, but practical experience beats it by a mile.
Gadget has described in a very detailed way how to avoid vapour escaping outside the mixing bowl. I have to admit it seems like overkill to me.
Nobody in their right mind is going to drink tea/coffee that hot. I'm also a physician. Darwin rules - OK?!
So, back to the OP.
PCTEA (with or w/o DEA* - a red herring in the present argument in my assessment) is a very much a 'peoples' brew that challenges the old D-76/ID-11 etc. I don't mean to sound socialistic! . It's the sort of stuff that frees one from the 'bought in a packet' mentality many newbies are led into believing is the 'way to go'. All the ingredients are so simple to buy - compare that w the old Kodak formulae. Gainer's original premise was - 'who needs SO3?' struck a deep chord with me.
PE seems to me to be overly anxious about the safety of hot TEA and not the advantages/disadvantages of a homebrew HC-110 equivalent. Yes, I know, safety is important but let's not get too carried away. Anyone reading here isn't a complete safety idiot. I always extinguish my cigar when I am working w hot alcohol.

BTW - did you have to promise that you would shoot yourself if you gave away any Kodak secrets?
Murray

*I note that HC-110 IIRC has DEA in the MSDS. Correct? A small increase of pH over TEA.

Photo Engineer said:
I use HC-110, but it goes in the darkroom at 68F not in the microwave or on the stove! I already said that though in a previous post.

And my unclassified military work is partly on display in my gallery. I carried my very own issued pistol to do just as you say in your post if it became necessary. I also carried Geneva convention ID in case of capture and 3 or 4 types of currency in case of going down "wherever". Again I say, so?

PE

Murray Kelly · Mar 16, 2009

As an old LTCOL (vietnam) I say, 'uhhh?' C'mon - get it back to the thread.
The only thing in a microwave oven that could ignite vapour is the on/off switch. Microwaves themselves are just heat waves. And very effective they are, too.
Does anyone have personal knowledge of an unfortunate outcome of warming TEA in a microwave oven? Theory is all very well, but practical experience beats it by a mile.
Gadget has described in a very detailed way how to avoid vapour escaping outside the mixing bowl. I have to admit it seems like overkill to me.
Nobody in their right mind is going to drink tea/coffee that hot. I'm also a physician. Darwin rules - OK?!
So, back to the OP.
PCTEA (with or w/o DEA* - a red herring in the present argument in my assessment) is a very much a 'peoples' brew that challenges the old D-76/ID-11 etc. I don't mean to sound socialistic! . It's the sort of stuff that frees one from the 'bought in a packet' mentality many newbies are led into believing is the 'way to go'. All the ingredients are so simple to buy - compare that w the old Kodak formulae. Gainer's original premise was - 'who needs SO3?' struck a deep chord with me.
PE seems to me to be overly anxious about the safety of hot TEA and not the advantages/disadvantages of a homebrew HC-110 equivalent. Yes, I know, safety is important but let's not get too carried away. Anyone reading here isn't a complete safety idiot. I always extinguish my cigar when I am working w hot alcohol.

BTW - did you have to promise that you would shoot yourself if you gave away any Kodak secrets?
Murray

*I note that HC-110 IIRC has DEA in the MSDS. Correct? A small increase of pH over TEA.

Photo Engineer said:
I use HC-110, but it goes in the darkroom at 68F not in the microwave or on the stove! I already said that though in a previous post.

And my unclassified military work is partly on display in my gallery. I carried my very own issued pistol to do just as you say in your post if it became necessary. I also carried Geneva convention ID in case of capture and 3 or 4 types of currency in case of going down "wherever". Again I say, so?

PE

Photo Engineer · Mar 16, 2009

Murray;

I have seen a refrigerator explode when it contained a volatile solvent. It blew the door several feet! So, if I err, I err on the side of safety! You know yourself that ammunition can cook off when hot, well, so can chemicals and they do it when you least expect it. This is usually when they are hot or approaching the flash point. In a microwave, hot spots can develop that exceed the average temperature due to standing waves in the wave pattern in the cooking chamber. If this is so, at best the TEA can boil over and at worst it can flash.

I will stress again that I probably err on the side of caution, but I prefer that to having an accident and injury as my responsibility. Think of my opinions what you will, but I base it on over 30 years of direct lab experience.

And yes, HC-110 has some DEA in it IIRC, but then it is made professionally and does not involve a microwave or a kitchen.

If I give away any EK secrets they can sue me, but my NDA has expired. As for the USAF, well that is another story.

PE

Murray Kelly · Mar 16, 2009

I do not in any way mean to demean PE's (Ron's) input here. Lord knows, we have little enough knowledgable input from professional photographic engineers without insulting them, as maybe I have done. I retract anything that would be considerd demeaning or derogatory. My thrust is to advance the input that amateurs can contribute to the total (greater) knowledge of photo science as they have done over the last 150 years.
Murray

AshenLight · Mar 16, 2009

PE,

I was sad that I seemed to have started an argument between two other members, not because of any of the advice anyone posted here. I fully appreciate the need to emphasize safety in a darkroom or a laboratory. I spent many years of my career as a software engineer working in a research lab environment where unsafe practices were simply not tolerated. In the chemical mixing area of my darkroom there is a hotplate/stirrer which is the only piece of equipment I use to heat anything but distilled water. The microwave in the darkroom is only used for quick drying test prints and heating distilled water... no other chemistry at all. I have a ventilation system immediately over the chemical prep area that moves at least twice the volume of air that a space the size of my darkroom needs. There is also a fire extinguisher rated for chemical fires within immediate reach of the compounding area. Needless to say I always wear gloves, a mask, goggles and, when necessary a face shield.

To make a long story short, I read the MSDS for each chemical I use and my original post was a perhaps poorly formed question about the safety of heating TEA to 250F. I managed to mix PCTEA at 175F but it seems from some of the posts here I could do it at an even lower temperature.

I apologize for starting an argument, that was certainly not my intention.

Regards,

Ash

Photo Engineer · Mar 16, 2009

Murray;

No need for apologies. I need people to make sure I don't err or overstate things, I need people to respond in such a way that it makes me think.

I cannot cite any accidents, but I prefer that and having given a warning than to think "I could have prevented that accident if I had spoken up". And that is what goes through my mind when I read these threads. I've walked down the hall behind a stretcher with an EMT crew carrying a friend who had an explosion. A decontamination crew had to come in to clean up the blood and chemicals on the lab and hall floors afterwards.

And, just becauses we have not heard of any accidents does not mean that there have never been any!

PE

Murray Kelly · Mar 16, 2009

I do not in any way mean to demean PE's (Ron's) input here. Lord knows, we have little enough knowledgable input from professional photographic engineers without insulting them, as maybe I have done. I retract anything that would be considerd demeaning or derogatory. My thrust is, to advance the input that amateurs can contribute to the total (greater) knowledge of photo science as they have done over the last 150 years we should encourage input here.
Murray

Murray Kelly · Mar 16, 2009

I composed a long reply, but realised it was irrelevant to the thread. At 3am I'm likely to say silly things. Please accept my deep apologies for any perceived insults/bad mouthing re the thread. Your input is way above anything I could possibly contribute.
Murray

Kirk Keyes · Mar 16, 2009

AshenLight said:
Deep sigh... This certainly isn't where I intended this thread to go when I started it

Welcome to APUG, Ash. And don't be sad, as some of the most amazing, interesting, and informative threads come out of these sorts of things.

sanking · Mar 16, 2009

The issue of potential danger relating to the heating of both TEA and glycol, in a microwave and otherwise, has been amply discussed in numerous posts in the past by Ron and Pat. Perhaps the moderators should combine the various threads and put them in a Sticky at the top of the board. That way if the issue comes up again Ron and Pat won't have to waste their time covering information that they have generously more than sufficiently covered in past threads.

Sandy King

wogster · Mar 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Murray;

No need for apologies. I need people to make sure I don't err or overstate things, I need people to respond in such a way that it makes me think.

I cannot cite any accidents, but I prefer that and having given a warning than to think "I could have prevented that accident if I had spoken up". And that is what goes through my mind when I read these threads. I've walked down the hall behind a stretcher with an EMT crew carrying a friend who had an explosion. A decontamination crew had to come in to clean up the blood and chemicals on the lab and hall floors afterwards.

And, just becauses we have not heard of any accidents does not mean that there have never been any!

PE

I don't blame you for being cautious about this stuff, in some cases possibly overly so, you are the resident expert on a lot of this stuff, and that position comes with a lot of responsibility. While a lot of the chemicals in photography are safe, when handled properly, some things can be very dangerous when they are not handled properly. For example when mixing powdered chemicals using a dust mask is not a bad idea.

I would say, rather then heating TEA in a microwave, how about heating water in the microwave, then using a double boiler type deal to heat the TEA over that water. Would keep the temperature well below the flash point, and you can always replace the water with fresh hot water, Rather then a microwave how about using an old kettle, get a new one for the kitchen....

Photo Engineer · Mar 16, 2009

Paul;

I use that method actually. I use a deep tray at 110F and heat a stainless steel beaker of TEA (or whatever) in the deep tray. I can get it up to 120F but won't go higher. I try to avoid such situations though, as I find there are other alternatives.

Thanks.

PE

wogster · Mar 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Paul;

I use that method actually. I use a deep tray at 110F and heat a stainless steel beaker of TEA (or whatever) in the deep tray. I can get it up to 120F but won't go higher. I try to avoid such situations though, as I find there are other alternatives.

Thanks.

PE

You obviously know this already, but for others, I recommend before using any chemical, get a copy of the MSDS, this document tells you about handing the material, what conditions to avoid, how to deal with spills, etc. Ilford posts the MSDS for all of their chemistries on the web site, Kodak does as well, if you put MSDS into the search area on the web site, it brings up a page to search through the available MSDS documents. I am not sure about other companies.....

Photo Engineer · Mar 16, 2009

Paul;

I have said what you just posted and more for several years here on APUG and on PN and it seems that there are some not interested.

PE

wogster · Mar 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Paul;

I have said what you just posted and more for several years here on APUG and on PN and it seems that there are some not interested.

PE

Well, ya can tell someone where to find the right info to be safe, but ya can't make 'em follow the instructions.... The only thing you can do is say "I told ya so", after they get out of the hospital....

srs5694 · Mar 16, 2009

wogster said:
You obviously know this already, but for others, I recommend before using any chemical, get a copy of the MSDS, this document tells you about handing the material, what conditions to avoid, how to deal with spills, etc.

Unfortunately, finding the MSDS (material safety data sheet) for a substance is impossible, because these documents aren't standardized; you can find dozens of different MSDSes for common substances such as TEA, and they can vary widely in what they say. Just for the heck of it, I tried searching out MSDSes on water one time, and although most of them were pretty common-sensical, some made water sound rather more threatening than others. (None was quite as bad as the various joke sites about dihydrogen monoxide or other scary-sounding [to the chemically uninformed] names for water, though.)

The point is that an MSDS, although potentially useful for many things, is an iffy document to use for making judgments about a substance's overall level of danger -- one MSDS may make something sound fairly innocuous and another may make it sound quite dangerous. By all means, read them, but don't jump to conclusions after reading just one MSDS.

wogster · Mar 16, 2009

srs5694 said:
Unfortunately, finding the MSDS (material safety data sheet) for a substance is impossible, because these documents aren't standardized; you can find dozens of different MSDSes for common substances such as TEA, and they can vary widely in what they say. Just for the heck of it, I tried searching out MSDSes on water one time, and although most of them were pretty common-sensical, some made water sound rather more threatening than others. (None was quite as bad as the various joke sites about dihydrogen monoxide or other scary-sounding [to the chemically uninformed] names for water, though.)

The point is that an MSDS, although potentially useful for many things, is an iffy document to use for making judgments about a substance's overall level of danger -- one MSDS may make something sound fairly innocuous and another may make it sound quite dangerous. By all means, read them, but don't jump to conclusions after reading just one MSDS.

One thing you will find common with them though, is they do include the hazards, one of the issues though with something like TEA or DEA, you need the proper name, especially since the abbreviated form can refer to several chemicals used in different industries, one might be quite dangerous and another may be fairli innocuous.

srs5694 · Mar 17, 2009

wogster said:
One thing you will find common with them though, is they do include the hazards

Part of my point is that "the hazards" are subject to interpretation by the document's author. For instance, I quickly found two MSDSes for water by Googling (Dead Link Removed, two). MSDS 1 sounds quite alarming -- under "Health Hazard Information" you find all sorts of disturbing things, like "Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal" and "Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea." MSDS 2 contains the simple statement "Water is non-hazardous," along with "not applicable" in the specific sub-categories in which MSDS 1 provides dire warnings. (Oddly, though, MSDS 2 does recommend use of goggles and a lab coat when handling water!) These inconsistencies are real problems for somebody who wants basic safety data on chemicals. If you didn't already know what water was, you'd have a hard time figuring out how to handle it safely from examining those two MSDSes.

MikeSeb · Mar 17, 2009

srs5694 said:
Part of my point is that "the hazards" are subject to interpretation by the document's author. For instance, I quickly found two MSDSes for water by Googling (Dead Link Removed, two). MSDS 1 sounds quite alarming -- under "Health Hazard Information" you find all sorts of disturbing things, like "Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal" and "Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea." MSDS 2 contains the simple statement "Water is non-hazardous," along with "not applicable" in the specific sub-categories in which MSDS 1 provides dire warnings. (Oddly, though, MSDS 2 does recommend use of goggles and a lab coat when handling water!) These inconsistencies are real problems for somebody who wants basic safety data on chemicals. If you didn't already know what water was, you'd have a hard time figuring out how to handle it safely from examining those two MSDSes.

The only surprising thing about this is that we are at all surprised by it.

This sort of regulatory foolishness is the inevitable result of:

--A populace that is incapable of assessing risks rationally, and which bears no direct and obvious (to them) cost from its unattainable insistence on zero risk;

--A legal system that incentivizes a predatory trial bar and plaintiffs to exploit this ignorance at enormous profit.

My favorite vignette of recent years: that prank (widely circulated on YouTube and elsewhere) wherein ignorant passers-by were convinced (without much effort in most cases) to sign a petition to ban the nefarious substance "Dihydrogen Oxide".

Funny if it weren't so pathetic.

drazak · Mar 17, 2009

Guys;

I would look for ACS or IUPAC approved MSDS for chemicals. As Wogster said, you must use the IUPAC names for chemicals as other names may be ambiguous.

Ben

Kirk Keyes · Mar 17, 2009

srs5694 said:
Part of my point is that "the hazards" are subject to interpretation by the document's author. For instance, I quickly found two MSDSes for water by Googling (Dead Link Removed, two). MSDS 1 sounds quite alarming -- under "Health Hazard Information" you find all sorts of disturbing things, like "Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal" and "Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea."

And this reinforces your point about checking who published any particular MSDS that happens to be sitting around on the interweb waiting for some unsuspecting and perhaps not-well versed person looking for MSDS info...

Your example #1 MSDS appears to be published by a company that specializes in safety training, and I would say it's another "fun" MSDS that is used to train people, kind of like another MSDS published by the same company for Dead Link Removed

When looking for MSDS info, I recommend looking for ones published on chemical manufactuer or university web sites. They seem to be the best ones out there, and then you can avoid all these less serious "MSDS" sources.

JT Baker and Mallinckrodt are often good sources.

PCTEA anyone?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency