Developer Toxicity -

[dpetrzelka]

I have a 1 year-old, and so am looking to keep the toxic chemicals in my house to a minumum.

Does anyone know of a website that clearly rates developers on thier toxic potential?
(both to humans using them, and on thier potential to do environmental harm)

I've been using Xtol - as I remember my high school photo teacher saying that it was relatively safe- but are there other options?
I'm interested in trying Rodinal- but its pretty nasty stuff- right?

[MartinP]

All the manufacturers websites have this information. I would strongly suggest that you do not feed the developer to your child, or to yourself. The stuff is only in contact with you if you are careless with it, the same goes for household bleach etc. Would anyone let their kiddies play with a bottle of bleach ?

This myth that having a developer-powder or solution in the house will result in instant death of children is not sensible. (I get cross about the rubbish and misinformation propagated by retailers of digital cameras . . .)

[foto_fool]

I don't want this to sound facetious or flip - I went through the same thing with my kids when they were 1-2. I never did find a comprehensive website. I downloaded MSDSs for each compound I was concerned about, and finally decided there was not a lot to worry over.

So long as you stay away from the pyrocat developers you will not be bringing anything more toxic into the house than most cleaning products. For example, don't go letting your kid drink that organic biodegradable "orange clean", unless you fancy a long call to the poison control center and a visit to the ER.

AFAIK there are no developers that release toxic fumes. You might make a little hydrogen sulfide, but you have to make a lot in a confined space to be a problem. Common sense precautions in storage and use of developers and fixers will keep your kids safe and healthy.

[dpetrzelka]

I was thinking more along the lines of environmental stewardship - rather than bottle feeding pyro (for example: we use vinegar for cleaning, rather than 409 or bleach).

Is ther any website that has catalogued this info? Or is it a matter of looking through the MSDS for each available developer?

[dpetrzelka]

Thanks John - I was wrinting my previous post at the same time you were.

Cheers

[robbo]

I would suggest you use common sense over your use of photo chemicals and get on with having fun raising your son - scraped knees, bruises and adventure

[foto_fool]

RE: environmental stewardship - again, according to my research everything in developer is biodegradeable except for metals. I'm doing Pd/Pt prints and believe me I save everything (the metals have recycle value). Toners can be a problem - particularly selenium but also copper and gold. Iron is not a problem.

The big issue for most home developing is the silver released when fixing film and prints. I collect my spent fixer in a plastic milk jug stuffed with steel wool. The iron in the wool causes the silver to precipitate. After a couple of days I can pour the treated fixer down the drain in good conscience.

I'm saving the precipitated silver. I plan to redissolve it in weak nitric acid and electroplate it out of solution - sort of a science project. Search the web for silver recovery if this is of any interest to you.

[Maxapple88]

Rodinal is pretty nasty yes, but that's why it also has the Fort Knox screw cap. Even I have trouble opening that sometimes...

[santino]

the only nasty stuff rodinal conains is hydroquinon. D76 is full of that stuff too. I wouldn't worry too much (just don't drink it)

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by dpetrzelka

I have a 1 year-old, and so am looking to keep the toxic chemicals in my house to a minumum.

Does anyone know of a website that clearly rates developers on thier toxic potential? (both to humans using them, and on thier potential to do environmental harm) I've been using Xtol - as I remember my high school photo teacher saying that it was relatively safe- but are there other options?
I'm interested in trying Rodinal- but its pretty nasty stuff- right?

If you want to keep the amount of trace material to a minimum, I suggest that you mix your own developer. I have been using a formula developed by Patrick Gainer that consists of phenidone, vitamin C, borax and red devil lye (sodium hydroxide) -- kind of like a green XTOL. Results are a little grainier than the name brand. Pre-packaged developers always have some extra stuff in them to keep the powder powdery or to account for long shelf life, or buffers so they will work well in a variety of water sources. FWIW, I do not know of a website that collects this sort of information so that a developer-to-developer comparison is possible.

You might check out: http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/Non...room_chemicals

There are a couple of books available through Amazon that deal with this information -- here is a quote from their website:

Health Hazards for Photographers :
by Siegfried Rempel, Wolfgang Rempel (Contributor)
Our Price: $16.95
Availability: This title usually ships within 2-3 days.
Paperback - 224 pages (January 1993)
The Lyons Press; ISBN: 1558211810 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.56 x 9.22 x
7.02
Reviews:
Booknews, Inc. , August 1, 1993
This important book for both professional and amateur photographers
discusses how photochemicals are absorbed by the body and describes their
toxicity and the preventive measures to be used while handling them. Other
sections address safety procedures in the darkroom and safety aspects of
lab design, ventilation, and protective equipment. Annotation copyright
Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

Overexposure :
Health Hazards in Photography/Everything You Need to Know About
Photographic Materials and Processes to Make Your workplace Safe
by Susan D. Shaw, Monona Rossol (Contributor)
List Price: $18.95
Our Price: $15.16
You Save: $3.79 (20%)
Availability: This title usually ships within 2-3 days.
Paperback - 320 pages 2nd edition (October 1991)
Allworth Press; ISBN: 0960711864 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.71 x 10.01 x
6.76
Reviews:
The publisher, ALLWORTH PRESS,
http://www.arts-online.com/allworth/home.html , February 11, 1997
Overexposure is a guide to all risks that photographers, lab personnel, and
others involved with photographic chemicals face — and how to protect
health and safety. Coverage includes setting up a safe workplace, a review
of which chemicals are harmful in various types of photographic processes,
health issues in conservation and restoration, and right-to-know laws.

I also have small ones around the house -- this is one of the reasons I started to mix my own chemicals.

Ben Marks

[MartinP]

Sorry that I sounded cross, Dpetrzelka, it is just that most of these things are not any worse than the other products lying around the house, and yet the (allegedly) carcinogenic, poisonous, soul-rotting photo-chemicals are/were given as a major reason for selling people digital cameras and printers, instead of home printing etc.

Looking at the safety-docs does indeed show that the main environmentally-dodgy product from the whole process is the silver, as foto-fool pointed out - and it is worth saving that, or at least taking it along to a lab/recycling-centre that does so.

[Freakscene]

>All the manufacturers websites have this information.

There are no reliable sources that rank the risks; the MSDSs for developers (and indeed for most chemicals) make them look more hazardous than they are.

>So long as you stay away from the pyrocat developers you will not be bringing >anything more toxic into the house than most cleaning products.

This is true with one caveat - hydroquinone is just as toxic as pyrogallol or catechol.

Stick to Xtol or any other ascorbate/non-HQ developer for film and paper (Neutol Plus is a non HQ ascorbate paper developer) and you're about as safe as you can be.

The two most important things are to make sure children can't access your chemicals and if the darkroom area is a multi-use room, to make sure that you clean everything up very carefully. Any spills, once dried, provide a source of powdered chemicals.

Marty

[arowe]

This shot is my 4 yr old son developing his first film at the weekend. - (Some pinhole shots we'd taken together.) - He loved the responsibility of having to watch the clock and invert the tank every minute and was very good about washing his hands / not touching his mouth etc, and of course he loved the results. I hope I've done him no lasting damage

[MartinP]

Arowe - this is extremely dangerous !!! He may turn in to a photographer . . .

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by santino

the only nasty stuff rodinal conains is hydroquinon. D76 is full of that stuff too. I wouldn't worry too much (just don't drink it)

Rodinal has a very high pH due to the large concentration of potassium hydroxide. This is probably the most hazardous chemical in all of photography, not because of environmental damage (it's quite benign inthat regard) but due to it's contact hazzard. If it gets into your eyes, look around fast, because that's the last thing you will ever see.

Ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. KOH dissolves eyes and fingers rather quickly in the concentration in which it's in rodinal.

[Tom A]

I do not worry too much about this stuff. Most developer ingridients are OK in small volumes. Biggest problem is usually when you mix powdered chemicals - the dust can cause allergic reactions.
Highly concentrated developers are dangerous (like Rodinal, Pyro stock,HC 110). Fortunately they truly taste awful so the chance of a kid tossing back 125 ml of Rodinal is slim.
For safety sake I would keep any photographic chemistry locked up, if you have kids and I would not use stuff like Pyro or Pyro Catechol until they have grown up and left home!
My worst incident was many years ago. I was bleaching a large print in ferrocyanide and managed to upend the little glass jar holding the ferrocyanide into my acid stop bath! The fumes were scary, I could feel my breathing being affected and made for the door instantly (fogged the print in the process too). The volume and concentration of cyanide gas released was very small and would not have killed me, but boy was it uncomfortable!
As with anything like this, common sense prevails. The silver recovery with steel wool and spent fixer is OK, but keep it in a well ventilated area as it can smell really bad. Figure out on a 60-70% recovery rate and 60-80 rolls of 35mm film will give you about an ounce of silver (as will 60-70 8x10 prints).

[goo0h]

Originally Posted by foto_fool

The big issue for most home developing is the silver released when fixing film and prints. I collect my spent fixer in a plastic milk jug stuffed with steel wool. The iron in the wool causes the silver to precipitate. After a couple of days I can pour the treated fixer down the drain in good conscience.

Is this really true, or just folklore? I'd like to believe it's true, but a friend that had a strong background in organic chemistry was skeptical that this would actually work.....

As to the OP question, I believe XTOL (primary ingredient is ascorbic acid) is supposed to be the safest overall. It also happens to be pretty good with faster films, which I tend to use the most anyway.

[titrisol]

Don;t over sweat it.
I had Rodinal, DDX, fixer, Pot.Iodide, and many other chemicals in the house when my daughters were crawling.
1st get a cabinet that can be locked (I just put 2 rings and a small padlock)
It is good explaing to them that this is daddy stuff and should not mess with it

goooo yes the steel wool trick works.
Not that having a solid stuff is any better but solid silver is far more stable and can go to landfills/recycling plants easier.
Fixer is INORGANIC chemistry, thiosulphate ions complex with silver-halides, but they can hardly dissolve metallic silver.
These complexes are soluble and quite stable, BUT silver prefers to stick to iron as a solid which is far more stable. Steel wool has a large surface/volume area and allows the silver to deposit quite efficiently. You end up with a black sludge now, what you do with it is another discussion.
Thiosulphate remaining as liquid still has some silver, but not a concern and can be decanted even with a septic tank.

Selenium and gold toners maybe harmful, but these can also be used almost to exhaustion, and when they are exhausted just leave a few dark prints in there to suck most of the metal out. Selenium is them very good for rose/flower beds since it is a micronutrient and helps the plants make brilliant colors the following year

[Freakscene]

>>I collect my spent fixer in a plastic milk jug stuffed with steel wool.
> Is this really true, or just folklore?

This method precipitates some of the silver out, but not all (I have tested this*). Na2O4S2 Sodium dithionite (aka sodium hydrosulfite or sodium hydrosulphite), added at about 2 tablespoons per litre of used fixer, will precipitate all the silver out. You add it to the fixer in an open container in a well-aired place (it releases some rotten-egg smells during the reaction) and leave it for a week or so at 20C or thereabouts (if it gets too cold the reaction won't happen). You can then filter out the colloidal silver and dispose of the liquid.

Marty

* In my test, 100g of steel wool, left in 1L used fixer for 14 days, removed about 60% of the silver from the used fixer. More steel wool and longer immersion may work. I'm not that patient.

[minoltist7]

Originally Posted by dpetrzelka

I have a 1 year-old, and so am looking to keep the toxic chemicals in my house to a minumum.

Does anyone know of a website that clearly rates developers on thier toxic potential?
(both to humans using them, and on thier potential to do environmental harm)

Most commercially made developers are toxic.
But there are some recipes of non-toxic developers from enthusiasts
Check this:
http://digitaltruth.com/silvergrain/

[foto_fool]

The steel wool thing works by an inorganic oxidation-reduction reaction. Because of their different electrochemical potentials, elemental iron in the steel wool oxidizes to give up electrons to the silver thiosulfate complex. This reduces the silver(II) to silver(0), the metallic state, which falls out of solution - this is the black sludge.

I have read varying reports of the efficiency of this process. In theory it should be close to 100% - I believe the report of "60%-70%" is actually the purity of the precipitate. Note that commercial labs use electrodeposition to recover the majority of silver from their spent solutions, but then add a downstream iron canister to catch that last percent - suggesting this iron replacement process is very efficient.

The dithionite and borohydryde reactions work the same way - by reducing the silver in solution to the metallic state, which precipitates. As with iron, these reactions are also nearly quantitative, and are faster and yield a more pure silver in the precipitate. Note though that these powdered chemicals are pretty seriously toxic - use gloves, a dust mask and eye protection.

As has been noted, a byproduct of the oxidation-reduction reactions is a small amount of hydrogen sulfide gas (from reduction of the thiosulfate) - the "rotten egg" smell. Don't do this in a closed space, as H2S can be toxic in concentrations over 150ppm in air. Fortunately, most humans will retch and run if the concentration reaches 10-20ppm.