Revised Safety Data Sheet for 510 Pyro

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zone Imaging

Active Member
Registered User
Joined
Feb 17, 2022
Messages
39
Edit: edit to this OP provided by a regulatory chemist who specialises in labelling and classification, using information and data publicly available on the C&L inventory and REACH registration provided by ECHA

Hello everyone!

A couple of weeks back, we hired a chemist that specialises in chemical regulation to have a look at our MSDS. We received his final report a few days ago and it turns out #510Pyro is significantly less hazardous than previously thought!

Summary:
  • The acute toxicity estimate does not meet the threshold to classify the concentrate as acutely toxic by oral, dermal and inhalation exposure so the toxic symbol has been removed
  • the concentrate does not reach the threshold to be classified as toxic to the environment either acutely or chronically (it was always our belief but now have the proof!) so the environmental hazard symbol has been removed
  • the hazards which 510 Pyro possess do not warrant classification for transport

Bottle labels from batches 0138 onwards will be updated to reflect the revised safety info.

Changelog to the SDS: Sections 2, 3, 14 and 16
 

Attachments

  • 510 Pyro SDS - Revision 1.pdf
    365.1 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
Do you have a US distributor for this item?

I believe these are US based

 
Indeed, they are.

As an advocate for 510, would you happen to have any comparisons of 510 v PMK v Pcat?
 
The only person I know of who uses all 3 would be John Finch.
He is always happy to answer question via email

 
Do you have a US distributor for this item?

Bostick & Sullivan sell 510 Pyro and have done for some years, and at a competitive price $16-95 for 100ml or $74.75 for 500ml.

To quote from the Zone Imaging 510 Pyro Data Sheet 9th revision, 27/01/2022:

AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY
510 Pyro is available in 100ml and 500ml bottles currently in the UK and 100ml bottles in the USA only. Manufactured and distributed by Zone Imaging Ltd. and Bostick & Sullivan respectively.


The only person I know of who uses all 3 would be John Finch.
He is always happy to answer question via email

John Finch has also posted a YouTube video showing how easy 510 Pyro is to mix from raw chemicals, as has Jay De Fehr.

Ian
 
Bostick & Sullivan sell 510 Pyro and have done for some years, and at a competitive price $16-95 for 100ml or $74.75 for 500ml.

To quote from the Zone Imaging 510 Pyro Data Sheet 9th revision, 27/01/2022:

AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY
510 Pyro is available in 100ml and 500ml bottles currently in the UK and 100ml bottles in the USA only. Manufactured and distributed by Zone Imaging Ltd. and Bostick & Sullivan respectively.




John Finch has also posted a YouTube video showing how easy 510 Pyro is to mix from raw chemicals, as has Jay De Fehr.

Ian

I find that buying premixed the first time to determine whether I want longer term use to be a good practice, rather than ordering a bunch of bulk chemistry. That's how I came to Pyrocat - first a kit, and then a large order for the requisite chemicals.
 
Do you have a US distributor for this item?
Hi @thronobulax yes we do as Ian Barber mentioned North East Photographic in Maine sell it


But Freestyle and Catlabs will have it by mid July the latest. We are still fulfilling those wholesale orders amongst others!

Indeed, they are.

As an advocate for 510, would you happen to have any comparisons of 510 v PMK v Pcat?
There are comparisons by John Finch

Best way I can describe in words for just the visual differences of the three for film results is that 510 Pyro is just a much finer grained and perhaps slightly sharper PMK though the acutance difference can be debatable and the main difference visually with Pyrocat HD has a different tonality regarding highlights - this tends to be one of the main decisions for customers between Pyrocat HD and 510 Pyro though there are other factors contributing to those decisions.
 
So I rather love the edge effects PMK has on transitions like cloud boundaries. Might I expect 510 to have similar behavior?

The only reason I ever stopped using PMK is that it's oxidation rate wouldn't permit semistand processing in open tanks. If I can get PMK like negatives but use long, dilute development, that's an appealing proposition.
 
I can't confirm that it does give the same cloud tonal transitions! That will be something you will have to discover for yourself and please let me know once you do! We're always taking feedback and learning more about this developer.

You don't have to worry about oxidation of the working solution upon use. I have found the working solution in open trays/containers still worked perfectly fine 2 hours later and in closed containers 4 hours (have not tested further)
 
Mr Lane, can you explain "Cloud Tonal Transitions" ? Please enlighten us.

Ian
 
Mr Lane, can you explain "Cloud Tonal Transitions" ? Please enlighten us.

Ian

I think I was the one who introduced that notion, so let me see if I can clarify what I mean by this. With PMK, shooting into a clear sky full of clouds, the transition from sky to cloud edge is very pronounced. It's an aesthetic effect I really like. I have seen nothing like this with Pyrocat. I attribute this (perhaps incorrectly) to the noticeably greater hardening and staining of PMK viz. Pyrocat.

The problem is, that I also want to semistand process many of my negatives to enhance apparent acuity, expand mid-tone contrast, and further reign in highlights in very long SBRs. That's not going to work with PMK because it has a very high oxidation rate and has a nasty tendency to streak if not agitated almost continuously.

That's why I asked about 510 Pyro. If it demonstrates that same edge transition behavior and can be seminstand processed, it could well become my replacement for Pyrocat.

It is worth noting that I have seen sharp edge effects with Pyrocat-HD but only if I am doing EMA style development. I have yet to try this with cloud scenes.

Hope that is clearer.
 
Last edited:
It is worth noting that I have seen sharp edge effects with Pyrocat-HD but only if I am doing EMA style development. I have yet to try this with cloud scenes.

How close have you got to seeing these edge effects without EMA and with what dilutions or havent you gotten close to seeing them
 
I think I was the one who introduced that notion, so let me see if I can clarify what I mean by this. With PMK, shooting into a clear sky fill of clouds, the transition from sky to cloud edge is very pronounced. It's an aesthetic effect I really like. I have seen nothing like this with Pyrocat. I attribute this (perhaps incorrectly) to the noticeably greater hardening and staining of PMK viz. Pyrocat.

The problem is, that I also want to semistand process many of my negatives to enhance apparent acuity, expand mid-tone contrast, and further reign in highlights in very long SBRs. That's not going to work with PMK because it has a very high oxidation rate and has a nasty tendency to streak if not agitated almost continuously.

That's why I asked about 510 Pyro. If it demonstrates that same edge transition behavior and can be seminstand processed, it could well become my replacement for Pyrocat.

It is worth noting that I have seen sharp edge effects with Pyrocat-HD but only if I am doing EMA style development. I have yet to try this with cloud scenes.

Hope that is clearer.
Hi @thronobulax I can say that 510 Pyro, with semi stand agitation particularly, does have strong Mackie lines meaning high acutance and micro contrast and the semi stand allows for a very wide tonal range throughout the shadows, mids and highlights.

But I cannot say for certain the transitions from cloud to sky with 510 Pyro will be just like with PMK in the way you like it. I think you would be best placed to discover that with your testing.

510 Pyro is very popular amongst landscape photographers though and not just portrait photographers!
 
510 Pyro doesn't have the same high acutance edge effects of Pyrocat HD or PMK, some here claim Pyrocat gives finer grain, and better acutance. With some films 510 Pyro might well give finer grain, but hey so does Rodinal but definitely not with all films.

Zone Imaging's so called inexperienced expert, James Lane's own words posting elsewhere as Jemzyboz "My personal thoughts of James for his expertise is that yes he is inexperienced and new to photochemistry"

In making all his unfounded claims about 510 Pyro he really needs to post comparison images to back his claims up. Lane claims I have a grudge against Jay De Fehr, sure I had very friendly contact with Jay, he asked if I could formulate a replenisher forb 510 Pyro many years ago. I passed on the idea (which wouldn't have worked anyway due to Pyrogallol oxidation), Jay and Sandy King were involved in quite vicious arguments across multiple forums. I wanted nothing to do with it.

However, some Zone Imaging reviewer users themselves told the true story, Pyrocat HD is way better overall, that doesn't mean 510 Pyro is a bad developer.

But there are some major downsides to 510 Pyro, it's next to useless in cold temperatures becomes a gooey mess, actually a sort of jelly, and it's extremely difficult to re-liquify. It's extremely toxic as it has nearly 10% Pyrogallol. It cannot be shipped by Air or the Channel Tunnel. It's a £50.000 first fine if caught breeching this, substantially larger for repeat offences.

So far every image posted recently of photos made with your 510 Pyro have zero shadow details, can you explain this. I and others (we are in touch) note that Jay posted quite different images with better tonality, you use a few I'm told.

We just want some honesty, Jemzyboz.

Ian
 
How close have you got to seeing these edge effects without EMA and with what dilutions or havent you gotten close to seeing them

I have not seen them at all with semistand Pyrocat, and only in some cases/some films with EMA Pyrocat.

510 Pyro doesn't have the same high acutance edge effects of Pyrocat HD or PMK, some here claim Pyrocat gives finer grain, and better acutance. With some films 510 Pyro might well give finer grain, but hey so does Rodinal but definitely not with all films.

Zone Imaging's so called inexperienced expert, James Lane's own words posting elsewhere as Jemzyboz "My personal thoughts of James for his expertise is that yes he is inexperienced and new to photochemistry"

In making all his unfounded claims about 510 Pyro he really needs to post comparison images to back his claims up. Lane claims I have a grudge against Jay De Fehr, sure I had very friendly contact with Jay, he asked if I could formulate a replenisher forb 510 Pyro many years ago. I passed on the idea (which wouldn't have worked anyway due to Pyrogallol oxidation), Jay and Sandy King were involved in quite vicious arguments across multiple forums. I wanted nothing to do with it.

However, some Zone Imaging reviewer users themselves told the true story, Pyrocat HD is way better overall, that doesn't mean 510 Pyro is a bad developer.

But there are some major downsides to 510 Pyro, it's next to useless in cold temperatures becomes a gooey mess, actually a sort of jelly, and it's extremely difficult to re-liquify. It's extremely toxic as it has nearly 10% Pyrogallol. It cannot be shipped by Air or the Channel Tunnel. It's a £50.000 first fine if caught breeching this, substantially larger for repeat offences.

So far every image posted recently of photos made with your 510 Pyro have zero shadow details, can you explain this. I and others (we are in touch) note that Jay posted quite different images with better tonality, you use a few I'm told.

We just want some honesty, Jemzyboz.

Ian

Do you feel similarly about PMK, which is also pyrtogallol-based (as regards to toxicity, I mean)?
 
Do you feel similarly about PMK, which is also pyrtogallol-based (as regards to toxicity, I mean)?

I guess so, but this Toxicity issue with Hydroquinone, Pyrocatechin, Pyrogallol, etc, is something all Photochemical manufacturers have to deal with. It means chemistry has to be shipped overland or in containers by sea, often leading to long delays presently. It's not something new, I remember a discussion about this with the then Ilford MD and Chairman some years ago.

It's less of an issue shipping to Europe where there are plenty of ferry crossings, so bypassing the air freight/Channel Tunnel restrictions, but it causes headaches shipping to the US and other countries outside mainland Europe.

PMK is usually shipped as a powder, so can be packaged more securely.

Ian
 
Last edited:
I guess so, but this Toxicity issue with Hydroquinone, Pyrocatechin, Pyrogallol, etc, is something all Photochemical manufacturers have to deal with. It means chemistry has to be shipped overland or in containers by sea, often leading to long delays presently. It's not something new, I remember a discussion about this with the then Ilford MD and Chairman some years ago.

It's less of an issue shipping to Europe where there are plenty of ferry crossings, so bypassing the air freight/Channel Tunnel restrictions, but it causes headaches shipping to the US and other countries outside mainland Europe.

PMK is usually shipped as a powder, so can be packaged more securely.

Ian

I am just trying to understand why you call out 510 Pyro particularly when - as you note - toxicity is a an issue all photochemical suppliers face. I ask because I am a careful long time user of PMK and now Pyrocat and wonder if there is some extra concern/care required for 510. ( I have a small sample of 510 en route.)
 
I am just trying to understand why you call out 510 Pyro particularly when - as you note - toxicity is a an issue all photochemical suppliers face. I ask because I am a careful long time user of PMK and now Pyrocat and wonder if there is some extra concern/care required for 510. ( I have a small sample of 510 en route.)
Hi @thronobulax we have always shipped 510 Pyro by sea and by land and continue to do so despite the revision by our chemist mentioned in the OP that for 510 Pyro at the very least does not require any transport regulations as the pyrogallol is diluted enough in the concentrate to not be classified toxic (and even pure pyrogallol is only acute toxicity 4, one of the lower categories and classification is needed for acute toxicity 1 or 2 which are higher categories) and we keep packages to a max of 5l to wholesalers just to be extra safe regarding regulations.

510 Pyro should be handled with nitrile gloves and eye protection just like any other developer whether conventional or staining. This is all detailed in the revised SDS above.

We work with Harman Ilford closely primarily in the marketing department as I am personal friends with the people in the marketing department and they have 510 Pyro and one of our future products in their technical department for their own testing. One of their Ilford Master printers uses 510 Pyro as one of his main three developers alongside Rodinal and ID11 1+3.
 
Last edited:
I am just trying to understand why you call out 510 Pyro particularly when - as you note - toxicity is a an issue all photochemical suppliers face. I ask because I am a careful long time user of PMK and now Pyrocat and wonder if there is some extra concern/care required for 510. ( I have a small sample of 510 en route.)

Bostick & Sullivan, with over 40 years experience of the photo chemical trade, mark 510 Pyro, PMK, and Pyrocat HD with all the relevant safety symbols as well as the dangers and precautions need for use. The concern is not stating the full toxicity and potential hazards/dangers.

The working solution of 510 Pyro is no more toxic than PMK or Pyrocat in use, but as it's a single solution highly alkaline concentrate as Lane says gloves are a necessity, it has a tendency to stain anything that comes into contact with it as it oxidises, very much faster than say Part A of PMK or Pyrocat, not an issue if you clean up any spilled drops quickly.

Ian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top