Yes if you dig
Originally Posted by miha
For the more challenged I quote
"The exception is XP2 Super film, which contains some dibutyl phthalate. This is now designated a Substance of Very High Concern in the EU, it is classified as Toxic for Reproduction, and its use is being phased out across the EU. XP2 Super film (processed or unprocessed) should be kept out of the reach of children. It should not be placed in the mouth, and if handled for extended periods of time, gloves should be worn. In this one case, processing laboratories should treat scrap film as hazardous waste.
(To put this into context, dibutyl phthalate was used very extensively in the past as a plasticiser in flexible plastics such as PVC, and in inks and sealants. It is present in many everyday items, including (eg) vinyl flooring, injection-moulded shoe soles, shower curtains, and electrical cables.)"
Originally Posted by pdeeh
And just to put the 'EU' regulations in the real world the amount of 'hazardous' material in a roll is so small as to be almost unmeasurable. So they said... I think.
Interesting speculation in the original link regarding possible worst-case scenarios for color film, a topic touched upon in a few earlier APUG threads...
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks for the Harman quote. It still leaves the 2 questions that I asked:
1. How optimistic is Harman about overcoming the EU problem?
2. Does the quoted chemical affect the future of all colour film?
This is a problem all photochemical industry has to face.
Perhaps the issue that the regulations wish to address is from the perspective of the manufacturing process as a whole, rather than the individual roll
Originally Posted by Xpres
I'll take the above reply as a Yes to my second question. So worst case scenario: Harman and the other colour film makers have a limited, if unspecified time, to find a substitute for this toxic chemical and if unsuccessful it spells the end of chromogenic and colour film
Originally Posted by AgX
Best case scenario: A substitute is found or Harman and the other film makers persuade the EU that the quantities involved are so low as not to constitute a real health hazard
Is that an accurate conclusion?
A Simon Galley response would be very helpful here I think
The dibutyl phthalate is widely cited in patent applications for colour/dye type emulsions. The high boiling solvents of phthalic ester compounds, e.g. dibutyl phthalate, and phosphoric ester compounds, e.g., tricresyl phosphate, have often been used as coupler solvents because of their coupler-dispersing ability, inexpensiveness and availability.
My reading would indicate it is used to dissolve a dye coupler, not present or necessary in conventional black and white negative film but intrinsic in the C-41 dye process hence the limited effect at Ilford to this film.
It is permanently retained in the emulsion as dispersed droplets within the coating. This would equate to the Ilford H&S warnings although we are talking literally microscopic amounts.
Obviously the exact formulae and uses are "trade secrets" but I would suggest from the literature that this is not the only such suitable solvent available. It may be the best choice for the particular coupler used in this case so the issue may not be replacing the implicated solvent but also replacing the coupler with which it is used which is going to affect the emulsion performance far more. Again there is a wide choice of couplers but all these variables will need testing.
I would further speculate that not all colour negative formulations will be affected as there are a wide range of couplers and again speculate that the particular black and white end point in this film, which requires a sensitisation to mimic conventional black and white film spectral sensitivity perhaps, requires different couplers than colour negative film.
This may all be wide of the mark and no doubt Photo Engineer could add comment as many of the patents were filed by Kodak.
I think the specific issue is with the market share of one film type the R&D required is out of proportion to the end result. Certainly investigation into new emulsions and crystal growth is a luxury the few left standing cannot afford and re-formulation alone is a major undertaking. I suspect most of the colour C-41 emulsions are safe and if not can be re-formulated the specific black and white C-41 may be at risk long term, short term there are master rolls representing years of supply.