dichromate disposal (was: Re: Dichromate dilution and speed)

Larry,

A previous discussion on dichromate disposal from the list archives:
/lists/alt-photo-process/alt95/0290.html

There was also an article on the RIT (?) website sometime ago about dichromate disposal. Sorry, but I don't have that reference on hand. I also read somewhere that trickling the waste water solution through kitty litter also serves to attach the chromium ions to the clays and take them out of solution. You would then be left with the problem of disposing of the litter properly but I would assume one bag of the stuff would be good for treating a lifetime's worth of gum waste water. But, I'm not a chemist so perhaps someone on the list who has that training can add to the discussion.

Joe

>>> larry.roohr@comcast.net 12/01/03 1:50 AM >>>
Joe,

How does one neutralize the hexavalent compounds before flushing?

Thanks,

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Smigiel" <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Dichromate dilution and speed

Sandy,

Do you know to what baume Sam mixes his gum solution? Isn't baume a measure
of specific gravity? If it is, I would assume that the 14B standard
adequately takes into account the quantity of dry gum in the mix, unless
there are heavy gums and light gums. If that is the case I would assume
variations in the purity or density of the colloid from year to year would
make a much larger impact on the printing and would be something that
couldn't be easily standardized regardless of the amount of dichromate used.
What would be a better universal measure for gum, liquid or dry, than baume?
Where and when the gum was obtained would influence the process a great deal
as several others have pointed out in the archives (most recently Katherine
in her discussion of P. Formulary gum).

As an aside, with gelatin do you find differences in bloom make a difference
in carbon printing characteristics? Perhaps differences in baume make for
more or less success with gum.

I also think perhaps the nature of the digital negative (on/off vs.
continuous tone) impacts the results Chris reports. Also, she mentions her
use of the Edwards exposure unit vs. Sam's use of the NuArc. I'd again
mention the fact I get much better results using the potassium salt and a
quartz halogen source or the sun rather than UV fluorescent tubes (which I
assume are in the Edward's unit). I recently acquired a NuArc Mercury 124K
(?) unit which I've used with some initial success with gum. It appears to
print with an overall quality similar to the quartz source.

I think Sam's results are outstanding, but I really do not think using dry
dichromate for each emulsion mix is safer than using precisely diluted
dichromate solution. As far as lessening personal exposure and ease of
measurement, I would prefer using the liquid. I think everyone involved in
this thread is saying that the amount of dichromate and gum and water can be
quantified and controlled various ways, just how we choose to do the mixing
and measurement differs. Aren't we really discussing where and when the
water goes into the mix rather than how much total we add?

I also vaguely remember reading a statistic which stated the industrial
discharge of dichromates into the environment was several thousand metric
tonnes daily. (Actually I think it was more like tens of thousands...) I'm
reasonably confident the minor amount we gum printers discharge into the
environment is inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, especially
if we take care to neutralize the hexavalent compounds before we flush them.

Joe

à
Received on Mon Dec 1 08:27:56 2003