Digital BW, The Print

This is an ink patent by HP and is an interesting read it seems to mostly concern Magenta ink in the testing perhaps because it it works for Magenta then the other ink colors will be fine.

http://images2.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20100292372A1.pdf

If you use Pauls base you will see some of the same chemicals as they are mentioned in any article on ink or fabric dying as contributing to the suspension of particles and the absorption of the dyes by the media. Paper is mostly plant cellulose fibers so chemicals for dying fabrics would serve the same purposes.

Photo Flow is about 1/3 propylene glycol and 5 to 10% of an Ethoxyethyl Linear Alcohol

Edwal is 15% isopropyl Alcohol and 35% Ethoxylated Linear Alcohols so may contain more than one.

Ethoxyethyl Linear Alcohols are also in Windex to keep dirt particles from clumping and it is also recomended for removing ink in detergent solutions. In fact there are many of these Ethoxylated Linear Alcohols
usually catorgized by the number of carbon atoms usually from 6 to the mid 20's for inks a lower number is better as a surficant and a number of around 12 as a suspension aid. It looks like inkjet inks work better when there are two of these working together.

I use an Ethoxylated Linear Alcohol "Surf AC-280" to mix with farm chemicals to help them stick to the leaves thus herbacides penetrate the leaf and insectacides stay on the leaf longer thus reducing the amount of spraying necessary. I also use it with biocides for the same purpose to control Grasshoppers and Caterpillars. Surf AC-280 is $14 a gallon and $8 shipping so in larger quanities these are economical components of an ink mixture. 

Bill Lewis

Bill,


> This is an ink patent by HP ...
> 
> http://images2.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20100292372A1.pdf


That URL is not working for me.

 
> If you use Pauls base you will see some of the same chemicals ...


There is a reason I call my blend a "generic" base.  These things have a lot in common.  The surfactant mix is a major area where there is variability and where there might be room for improvement.



> Photo Flow is about 1/3 propylene glycol and 5 to 10% of an Ethoxyethyl Linear Alcohol


And both are active ingredients.


> Ethoxyethyl Linear Alcohols are ...


A huge class of chemicals.  The trick is to find the "cocktail" that works the best and is easily available in small quantities.


 
> usually catorgized by the number of carbon atoms usually from 6 to the mid 20's for inks a lower number is better as a surficant and a number of around 12 as a suspension aid. It looks like inkjet inks work better when there are two of these working together.


Yes, there are multiple uses and needs for these chemicals.  They line up on different types of surfaces and are more than just wetting agents.


A surfactant is a long molecule with one end that has an affinity for water (hydrophilic) and one end that hates water (hydrophobic).  (I sometimes think of them as like tadpoles that are trying to get out of the water.)  Different types line up against different types of surfaces.  So, for example, some line up at the water-air surface.  Some line up at water-metal surfaces, some at water-pigment surfaces, etc.  So, there are all sorts of these with differing characteristics, and different blends (or "cocktails" as I sometimes call them) will lead to different performances of the inks.

 
> I use an Ethoxylated Linear Alcohol "Surf AC-280" to mix with farm chemicals ... $14 a gallon ...


One reason I used the Photo Flo and Edwal is that they were readily available in small quantities and the darkroom types I expected to become ink mixers were familiar with them.  Additionally, they've been used for years, and I expect potential negatives associated with their use would have been fairly well known and documented.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I'm glad you posted that.  I was looking at the msds for the components 
last week.

I was going to ask the question about the Edwal LFN.  It just seems to 
me that the components are in Paul's formula, and the addition of such a 
(relatively) minute amount serves little purpose.

Unless I missed something.

Seth

There is a reason I call my blend a "generic" base.  These things have a lot in common.  The surfactant mix is a major area where there is variability and where there might be room for improvement.
 
 A huge class of chemicals.  The trick is to find the "cocktail" that works the best and is easily available in small quantities.

 One reason I used the Photo Flo and Edwal is that they were readily available in small quantities and the darkroom types I expected to become ink mixers were familiar with them.  Additionally, they've been used for years, and I expect potential negatives associated with their use would have been fairly well known and documented.  
 
Paul www.PaulRoark.com
****************************************

I think most consider Pauls contributions to carbon printing ink formulas to be above and beyond. I certianly with an education in chemistry and organic chemistry would not have the equipment to analize how the different possible mixes compare.

As for the information in the HP Patent it appears that they just tried different mixes and made short term measurments. It did not look like they were using exceptional knowledge rather they were just mixing a batch then changing one component and trying that one out. The use of a week latex dilution in some mixes made me think of offset lithographic inks which used Latex to help the ink adhere to the offset plate or drum. So some of this inkjet technology is just trying what worked with other inks and retesting.

Paul did what I might have done as he said buying most of these specialty alcohols is not available in small quanities many are available in 55 gallon drums or railroad tank cars. A few that work well with common uses like farm chemical application enhancers are available in gallon and 5 gallon containers but this is not the norm for these compounds. So finding easily locatable comercial compounds that have these properties makes the formula available to a wide audience. While I considered using water Surf AC-820 and isopropyl alcohol and making my own "Edwal" I opted to follow closely in the footsteps of someone who knows his subject and is demanding in the look of the finished print.

From my searches and reading on inkjet ink formulations it appears that the use of two surficants one that has some slight "detergent" action and the other which has a "spreading' action are present in all formulas in addition in some there is a flourinated alcohol 

Bill Lewis

I've been darkroom mixing since the mid-60's, so I applaud what 
everybody is doing.

I wasn't arguing the use of LFN.  Just asking if that minute addition 
was necessary.  Bill and Paul's test will tell.

As to other surfacants, Triton X 100 is readily available and widely 
used.  Anyone tried that?  The only minor issue is see is the (again, 
minute) amount of hydrogen peroxide used they be act as a bleach to 
OBAs. The flip side of that is it acts as a biocide.  There are variants 
of Triton out there that may not have H2O2.

Just food for thought.

Seth ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:
>
> ... question about the Edwal LFN.  It just seems to 
> me that the components are in Paul's formula, and the 
> addition of such a (relatively) minute amount serves little purpose.

Often the use of even less than 1% of one of these strong surfactants is optimal.  Edwal LFN really helps the blend.  I based much of what I  recommended on actual tests of different amounts -- examining high resolution scans of test prints.  I don't claim that 1% is perfect and 1.1% too much, 0.9% too little.  But as I moved up in larger increments, the increment I tested above 1% (I forget the exact number) resulted in no improvement.  

The same type of progression was used with Photo Flo.  The 10% amount for that looks much larger, but look at how little active surfactant is in that mix.

I did also round to easy-mixing numbers.  Very slight differences make little of no visible differences. 

We will have to keep an eye on the performance of these inks as the printers get faster.  The rheology may become more critical, and the surfactant mix is a very significant part of the overall formula.  I make no claims that the ones I specify are the ultimate; they work and are readily available.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"Bill" <bill-lewis@...> wrote:
>
> ...
> As for the information in the HP Patent ... It did not look like they were using exceptional knowledge rather they were just mixing a batch then changing one component and trying that one out...


Sounds like my approach.

 
> From my searches and reading on inkjet ink formulations it appears that the use of two surficants one that has some slight "detergent" action ...


Note that Edwal LFN is itself a blend.  

With respect to the detergent action, the first hint I had as to how good Edwal was came when I pulled a blend with it in up into a pipette I had used quite a bit with the Photo Flo only blend.  The pipette had a lot of carbon stuck to the sides.  When the Edwal base (C6b) was pulled into the pipette, that carbon started to fall off the walls of the pipette immediately.  I was very impressed.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> As to other surfacants, Triton X 100 is readily available and widely 
> used. 


That is the active ingredient of Photo Flo.  But, the glycol in Photo Flo is also an active ingredient.  So Photo Flo is a nice way to get 2 birds with one stone in manageable volumes.


> The only minor issue is see is the (again, 
> minute) amount of hydrogen peroxide used ...


Where are you seeing the hydrogen peroxide?  I've used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_X-100 as a source of information on this chemical.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul-

Right from Sigma at
www.sigmaaldrich.com/etc/medialib/docs/Sigma/.../t8532pis.pdf

It's on the first page of the pdf that some commercial instances have 
H2O2 added at .22%.

Also, they mention that Triton is a UV  (about 280nm range) absorber, if 
I'm reading it right.  They make a variation that deals with that

Might want to read :
www.sigmaaldrich.com/etc/medialib/docs/Sigma/.../pd1bul.pdf  also.

AND, (too funny to pass) the NIH talks about reaction with horseradish.  
But, read the short article further because it deals with peroxides 
forming when Triton solutions age.  It's at 
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3993940.

It ends with, "These observations suggest the need for appropriate 
precautions when biologically active substances vulnerable to attack by 
peroxides are incubated with Triton X-100 either for their 
solubilization from biomembranes or for other processing."

This all got me wondering if other surfactants had similar issues you 
should be aware.
Seth



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:
>
>... some commercial instances [of Triton] have H2O2 added at .22%.
>...

Because Photo Flo 200 is composed of only 5% to 10% Triton X-100, we're talking about a rather small amount of potential H2O2.  Whether Photo Flo is among those that has any at all is also unknown.  Additionally, since I believe H2O2 breaks down to (2) H2O + O2 in water, whether it would be in the dilute ink mix for long is an open question.

At any rate, I was trying to think what impact some residual H2O2 might have on the ink.  I suppose it might bleach the carbon -- oxidize it.  In that case, the Carbon-6 (home brew base) inks might lose some density in the bottle compared to the same blend of Eboni-6.  To test whether this is happening, I did a draw-down test of quite old Carbon-6 LC (9% Eboni) and Eboni-6 LC (9%).  There was no density decrease in the Carbon-6 version relative to the (newer) Eboni-6 version.

Bottom line, I'm not going to worry about this with at least Photo Flo.  It'll be an issue to keep an eye on if I start using concentrated Triton X-100 (like perhaps when Kodak pulls the plug on Photo Flo 200, as they have on Photo Flo 600, apparently).

Thanks for alerting me to the potential issues relating to this chemical.  It's all useful information.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

If memory serves, I believe I've seen H2O2 mentioned somewhere in ink formulations in patents for water based inks for inkjets. I think it was generally meant as a mild biocide agent to clean up the base solution ingredients during production and not necessarily intended for permanent retention in the mix.

Regards,
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>

> Because Photo Flo 200 is composed of only 5% to 10% Triton X-100, we're talking about a rather small amount of potential H2O2.  Whether Photo Flo is among those that has any at all is also unknown.  Additionally, since I believe H2O2 breaks down to (2) H2O + O2 in water, whether it would be in the dilute ink mix for long is an open question.
> 

> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>