ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

[Alan Johnson]

A search for Pyrogallol IATA suggests that it is not subject to REACH regulation, eg:

https://www.carlroth.com/medias/SDB-3963-IE-EN.pdf?context=bWFzdGVyfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0c3wyNDk2MTR8YXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRmfHNlY3VyaXR5RGF0YXNoZWV0cy9oNDcvaDQzLzg5NjQ5NzI3NDA2MzgucGRmfGVjMjU0NjM0YjE2MWYxYmU4MGZmMzQ1NmRmNDViZTMzYTQ3MmFjOGQxNWQzY2M4ZGM0MmEzYzVlNjJiZTYxMmM

Neither does it carry the skull and crossbones symbol.
Section 14 not subject to ICAO IATA
However, H302, harmful if swallowed is generally quoted in the SDS.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

According to MSDS of Pyrogallol, LDLo Oral for humans is 28 mg/kg. As 100ml bottle of 510-Pyro contains 10g of Pyrogallol, it can be potentially lethal if consumed orally.

You'll also find that Pyrogallol's hazard class for transportation is 6.1:
"A material, other than a gas, which is known to be so toxic to humans as to afford a hazard to health during transportation, or which in the absence of adequate data on human toxicity.
Is presumed to be toxic to humans because it falls within any of the following:

• Oral toxicity not more than 300 mg/kg LD50
• Dermal Toxicity not more than 1000 mg/kg LD50
• Inhalation Toxicity dust or mist not more than 4 mg/L LC50"

I think it's compulsory to display the skull and crossbones symbol with a material that is in class 6.1.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It may be toxic, but it can still be transported by air.

Not disputing this. But the shipment needs to have appropriate hazard labels:

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I know the package I received recently from ZoneImaging had the proper paperwork and identified as film developer liquid hazardous. Can’t speak for other companies.

The ongoing discussion led by @Ian Grant is on the new MSDS of Zone Imaging's 510-Pyro which has dispensed of toxicity warnings (the skull & cross bones symbol that you can see on your 510-Pyro bottle). Other companies haven't removed the toxicity warnings yet.

 

[MattKing]

I expect all of this confusion is at least partially rooted in the relative difficulty and, in particular, expense involved in shipping something that is labelled as hazardous.

 

[AgX]

The ongoing discussion led by @Ian Grant is on the new MSDS of Zone Imaging's 510-Pyro which has dispensed of toxicity warnings (the skull & cross bones symbol that you can see on your 510-Pyro bottle).

Over the last years quite some dangerous substance symbols have been changed within the EU.



Concerning toxicity to man:


Skull w. crossed bones = "lifethreatening poisoning after contact with small amount for short time"

black Torso = "very severe harm to health with retarded effect"

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Over the last years quite some dangerous substance symbols have been changed within the EU.



Concerning toxicity to man:


Skull w. crossed bones = "lifethreatening poisoning after contact with small amount for short time"

black Torso = "very severe harm to health with retarded effect"

These definitions are vague. I would be surprised if Europe is not using scientifically precise definitions that can be used as operating guidelines e.g. LD50 value.

 

[AgX]

These are descriptions officially associated with these symbols to make them understandable for the lay man.


For a substance already listed there is a table where its specific hazard rankings are shown. To understand what led to these ranking the official evaluation report can read.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I think it's compulsory to display the skull and crossbones symbol with a material that is in class 6.1.

There may be found examples of well known large companies that do not, eg, Merck/Sigma Aldrich

https://www.merckmillipore.com/GB/en/product/Pyrogallol,MDA_CHEM-822302

SDS section 14 IATA: Not dangerous goods

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

There may be found examples of well known large companies that do not, eg, Merck/Sigma Aldrich

https://www.merckmillipore.com/GB/en/product/Pyrogallol,MDA_CHEM-822302

SDS section 14 IATA: Not dangerous goods

Interestingly, Merc/Sigma show the skull and cross bones symbol for Catechol and hazard statement of 6.1 for transportation! I was always made to believe that Pyrogallol is more toxic and dangerous than Catechol.

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/IN/en/sds/sial/c9510

 

[FotoD]

I do not understand all the talk about this to be honest. I have received last week the order from ZoneImaging’s 510 Pyro. It was bottled, invoiced and shipped with proper labeling and identification to all parties as required by law.

It can be confusing if you havent followed the thread from the beginning. Start reading from where the owner of ZoneImaging pretends to be someone else to give the impression of posting independent information.

More recently the discussion covers ZoneImaging changing their MSDS by removing a number of warnings, without removing the dangerous substances from the product. It's not surprising the product you recieved had the appropriate labeling since this appears to be a very recent change. Read the thread and it should be pretty straightforward.

 

[FotoD]

I read through the thread. How many people here use their real name?

All that actively promote their own products, I would have hoped.

 

[faberryman]

I read through the thread. How many people here use their real name?

An individual using an alias on an internet forum is one thing; using an alias pretending to be a satisfied customer and shilling for your company is quite another. It is just dishonest.

And claiming to be a photo chemist and operating a photo chemical company is a bit rich. Mixing up four ingredients from Jay DeFehr's formula is easier than making a cake. I mix up some of my chemicals so I guess I am a photo chemist too. I even have a scale.

I don't know what's going on with the SDS, but, given James Lane's past behavior, I'm not willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt.

All that being said, the 510 Pyro he sells is probably okay. Not sure how he could possibly screw it up.

 

[pentaxuser]

It seems to me that we have reached a position that I suppose all forums reach whereby posters fall into 2 camps: either All of Zone Imaging's action are OK or some are OK and some are not.

What is OK for me is that it delivers what it says it will deliver, namely Jay de Fehr's 510 Pyro and as I said earlier this part of Zone Imaging's action has never been criticised as far as I can tell. You get the product you pay for

I feel that no matter how long this discussion goes nothing is likely to emerge that will be of sufficient import for those in either camp to move camps or express any concern

I remain in the camp that has concerns about its behaviour

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Fair enough, but my experience was not negative with ZoneImaging.
Maybe the guy made a mistake, maybe it was someone else messing with his identity to harm his business.
All kinds of misinformation happens online. I learned a long time ago to take whatever I read from "handles" with a grain of salt.

If you haven't already done so, it is worth reading the whole thread. If you then decide that the guy made a genuine mistake or mistakes; that someone highjacked his identity and that generally he is totally OK in all aspects then fair enough

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

It's odd that Jemzyboz/Lane keeps reading his posts here but doesn't reply.

At least he's removed the claims on his Zone Imaging website of working closely with Ilford. But he still claims working with PE/Ron Mowrey, despite the fact Ron passed away before he asked him any questions.

He's a total fraud.

Ian

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

he still claims working with PE/Ron Mowrey, despite the fact Ron passed away before he asked him any questions.

This is the exact text on Zone Imaging webpage that mentions the Kodak engineer:

"As COVID lockdown hit, he started modifying black and white developers and under the guidance of a Kodak engineer, an unique C41 developer for the lab giving more vibrant reds."

I doubt the Kodak engineer mentioned in the above text is PE as he had passed before the covid-19 lockdown in UK. This is corroborated by @Jemzyboz's own post here. Further, @Jemzyboz in a later post writes this on PE's C41 developer formulas: "this looks insanely expensive to make... plus I don't think I can get half of these ingredients... I think I will stick to my homemade developer." So this is an admission that PE had nothing to do with @Jemzyboz's homemade developer.

Could there have been another Kodak engineer who guided Zone Imaging Labs on "unique C41 developer for the lab giving more vibrant reds"? Only they can confirm.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Interestingly, Merc/Sigma show the skull and cross bones symbol for Catechol and hazard statement of 6.1 for transportation! I was always made to believe that Pyrogallol is more toxic and dangerous than Catechol.

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/IN/en/sds/sial/c9510

This still remains a puzzle to me. Going by Merc/Sigma's MSDS, is Pyrogallol less toxic than Catechol?

 

[Ian Grant]

This still remains a puzzle to me. Going by Merc/Sigma's MSDS, is Pyrogallol less toxic than Catechol?

A lot of this has to do with the level of recent research done into chemicals that have generally fallen out of common usage.

Even back in the 1060s though Johnsons of Hendon put more stringent safety warnings on their developers that contained Meritol the supposed fusion product of Pyrocatechin and PPD.

The photo-chemical industry has in general taken safety warnings and procedures seriously, giving the relevant data in terms of Health & Safety. However larger users of similar chemistry like say hair dyes don't take such a diligent approach to the use of PPD compounds and skin contact. Having had a severe allergic reaction to a hair dye from a major International manufacturer, I don't think much of their Health & Safety data, I did not have any direct skin contact, it was the toxic chemical fumes.

But back to MSDS, in some for Pyrogallol you sometimes see "No data available" in some sections. There are published papers on its Toxicity, but it also has medical uses, as does Hyroquinine.

It is Ron Mowrey Jemzyboz is referring to, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, it’s just they never had any direct contact.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Ian and others who have shown an interest in Zone Imaging and James Lane, here's a comment below that I found the other day on one of the least populated YouTube site in terms of comments. Other than James this presenter has one other comment on this particular video about which is the best developer for CHS II from Adox

I found it intriguing but it left more questions than answers It appears that James was out for dinner with Mirko and others last week It sounds as if amongst the others there was the founder of Europe's largest lab and he,James , and Mirko were trying to get the owner of this lab to switch to their respective flagship developers from HC110. I assume that James's flagship developer is 510 Pyro but maybe he now has another that he considers to be a rival to HC110 . He doesn't say what Mirko's developer is that is a rival to HC110. Nor do we know the purpose of the dinner.

Neither could apparently persuade this owner to change to either flagship developer. I wonder how difficult converting the biggest lab in Europe to 510 pyro would be? 510 doesn't sound like the easiest of developers to use in a lab setting but I don't know enough about lab set-ups to judge

Anyone any thoughts on Adox' flagship developer?

It just seems a strange site on which to announce the above. He managed to get a "plug" for himself and 510 pyro but as I said it is one of the sites with almost no followers so not the best platform on which to sell yourself and your product


pentaxuser




Pinned by Film Photography

James Lane​

4 days ago
"I was just out for dinner with the CEO of Adox and others last week. We were both trying to convince the founder of Europe's largest lab to switch to our respective flagship developers from Kodak's HC110. Unfortunately, the lab owner said no to us citing it wasn't economical for either but at least he said he didn't like the look of FX39 but didn't say the same about 510 Pyro!"


https://www.youtube.com/create_channel?upsell=comment

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I was just out for dinner with the CEO of Adox and others last week. We were both trying to convince the founder of Europe's largest lab to switch to our respective flagship developers from Kodak's HC110.

Gosh. Mr Lane must really be a mover and shaker in the industry...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

If the biggest lab in Europe does get interested in 510-Pyro thanks to the Zone Imaging's plug, what stops the lab from brewing the concentrate from the ingredients itself? After all the formula is in public domain, ingredients are not too hard to source and the concentrate is not technically complicated to make unlike HC-110.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If the biggest lab in Europe does get interested in 510-Pyro thanks to the Zone Imaging's plug, what stops the lab from brewing the concentrate from the ingredients itself? After all the formula is in public domain, ingredients are not too hard to source and the concentrate is not technically complicated to make unlike HC-110.

Exactly. Zone Imaging seems to consist of marketing fluff and now potentially misleading datasheets.

 

[MattKing]

Even back in the 1060s though

You are older than I thought Ian

 

[AgX]

Ian and others who have shown an interest in Zone Imaging and James Lane, here's a comment below that I found the other day on one of the least populated YouTube site in terms of comments. Other than James this presenter has one other comment on this particular video about which is the best developer for CHS II from Adox

I found it intriguing but it left more questions than answers It appears that James was out for dinner with Mirko and others last week It sounds as if amongst the others there was the founder of Europe's largest lab and he,James , and Mirko were trying to get the owner of this lab to switch to their respective flagship developers from HC110. I assume that James's flagship developer is 510 Pyro but maybe he now has another that he considers to be a rival to HC110 . He doesn't say what Mirko's developer is that is a rival to HC110. Nor do we know the purpose of the dinner.

Neither could apparently persuade this owner to change to either flagship developer. I wonder how difficult converting the biggest lab in Europe to 510 pyro would be? 510 doesn't sound like the easiest of developers to use in a lab setting but I don't know enough about lab set-ups to judge

Anyone any thoughts on Adox' flagship developer?

It just seems a strange site on which to announce the above. He managed to get a "plug" for himself and 510 pyro but as I said it is one of the sites with almost no followers so not the best platform on which to sell yourself and your product


pentaxuser




Pinned by Film Photography

James Lane​

4 days ago
"I was just out for dinner with the CEO of Adox and others last week. We were both trying to convince the founder of Europe's largest lab to switch to our respective flagship developers from Kodak's HC110. Unfortunately, the lab owner said no to us citing it wasn't economical for either but at least he said he didn't like the look of FX39 but didn't say the same about 510 Pyro!"


https://www.youtube.com/create_channel?upsell=comment

There is something wrong in that report, as the founder of Europe's largest photo-lab already died in 1998.