Ink Solvent Toxicity

[bluemagister]

I'm not planning on drinking ink anytime soon, but after filling or flushing pens I sometimes get some spots on my fingers. I know that non-permanent inks are really just water soluble dyes and pigments and I am not too worried about those, but in the case of the tougher inks (i.e., Noodler's Nakahama and its powerful solvent smell) or carbon particle inks (i.e., Platinum Carbon) I sometimes worry about the organic solvents affecting my liver or carbon nanoparticles diffusing into my skin.

 

Paranoia? Maybe, but it's just something that crosses my mind whenever I fill a pen. I wonder if Mr. Tardiff or someone in the know can expound more on this.

[GreenVelvet]

Very interesting question. I look forward to reading the responses. Sometimes I wonder about this, too.

[welch]

I would guess that nothing sold today is anywhere as "toxic" as the permanent inks we had in the '50s, or that our parents and grand-parents used. For about thirty years, Parker added a magical ingredient called "Solv-X" to their inks; they implied that it was some sort of lubricating solvent. Sheaffer added the amazing RC-35 that supposedly left a writing trace even after the infamous "ink eradicator" had been applied.

 

People survived.

 

Conclusion: whatever is in modern inks is both so benign and leaves such small amounts on your fingers that it's not worth worrying about.

[ZeissIkon]

Whatever solvents might be present in carbon particle inks are more likely part of the biocide component than related to the actual ink. All you really need for carbon particle ink is finely divided carbon (nanoparticles are best, but lamp black and finely ground charcoal have been used for literally millennia), some kind of binder, something to keep the carbon suspended (these are often the same ingredient, a gum like gum arabic or dextrin), and a carrier (which is always water, else you have something other than ink). Nanoparticle inks may not even require a suspension enhancer (nor a binder, come to that; the carbon particles can actually be carried into the spaces between paper fibers by the carrier). Some carbon inks will incorporate a detergent acting as a dispersant, to prevent clumping of the carbon, and some (especially if intended for fountain pens) may have flow modifiers and/or wetting agents to make them not too dry, not too wet.

 

Some Noodler's inks (Noodler's Black, for instance) have a distinct solvent smell as well (reminds me faintly of acetone), and they have no particulates at all. Many biocides, however, have similar alcoholic, ketone, or ethereal smells.

 

Biggest reason I wouldn't expect actual toxic solvents in inks: they'll eat pen materials. Acetone will damage pretty much any plastic except hard rubber -- maybe hard rubber too, come to that. Same is true of the simplest alcohols, at least, some glycerin derivatives and glycols, and most petroleum distillates (the latter of which generally aren't miscible with the water carrier, a separate strike against them).

[PJohnP]

In real estate, they say, "Location, location, location."

 

In toxicology, the parallel remark is, "Dosage, dosage, dosage."

 

The key is the dosage of a toxin, that is, toxic mass quantity injested/inhaled/absorbed for your body mass in a set period of time. Some materials have lower threshold levels (e.g., HCN) while others have higher thresholds (e.g., NaCl), but, simplifying a bit, it's the dosage that determines acute issues.

 

There are indeed some materials that bio-accumulate such as lead or mercury, but those aren't generally an issue in commercially available fountain pen inks, and more to the point, when considered for chronic effects, require exposure at a set concentration over a period of time (see discussion of acute effects above). Carbon "nano" black particles could indeed be a problem - if you were inhaling such particles consistently over a period of time at a substantial concentration in the air, along with some other health factors considered.

 

All of that said, if you should choose to drink, say, an iron gall archival ink in quantity, yes, one might expect some toxicity issues, but ink spots on your hands ?

 

Not such an issue...

 

You're not talking about materials with extremely low threshold toxicity quantities, you're not discussing extremely large doses of the materials, and one presumes that you're not rubbing the ink into open wounds, throwing it in your eyes, snorting from the bottles, running ink into your ears or other orifices, etc.

 

If I were to offer my professional advice (and this is indeed a part of the repertoire of work that I'm involved with), I'd be more concerned about failing to buckle up when driving, crossing the street without looking both ways, or eating meat well past its "sell by date" than I would be about modern fountain pen ink spots on your hands.

 

Wash your hands off when you get ink on them, don't bathe or shower in ink, and enjoy all the hues that you have in those little glass and plastic bottles on your desk !

 

 

 

John P.

 

 

P.S. None of this says go and huff commercial ink solvent from a paper bag, or get a vat of this material and let it evaporate in your home, or suchlike lunatic behaviour. The days of sniffing sheets of mimeographed paper handed out by your teacher are long past !

 

P.P.S. If you're really intent on this issue, have a look at the McGuffin in The Name of the Rose and ponder that approach...

[Sandy1]

Hello,

I've been doing some samples which involve handling Sailor Nano Blue-Black quite a bit . The few times that I have gotten some of that ink on my fingers, it has washed off completely without hesitation, using tap water.

 

Toxic? Perhaps, but not likely to penetrate the skin.

 

If doing a lot of fiddling about, wear eye protection & gloves. But for the usual ink-up, use & flush/clean, if one has 'normal' dexterity, I wouldn't be too too concerned.

 

BR,

S1

[bluemagister]

I think that I am not worried so much about getting sick and dying from miniscule amounts of ink exposure, but I am also curious to see MSDS sheets on some of the solvents that the inks use. I'm not trying to incite panic or paranoia in the fountain pen community, but since crayons and pencils must conform to non-toxic guidelines, what I was really asking is "what are the standards for toxicity as applied to fountain pen ink?" and "do fountain inks have to conform to standards for toxicity?" None of the inks I've seen here in the US have such labeling, so there is no way to know anything about the inks.

 

Toxic solvents even in small doses over the decades of fountain pen use could result in problems. It takes ONE cell to start a cancerous growth, after all. As a nanoparticle researcher (before), a cancer immunologist (before) and an environmental microbiologist (now), I guess I just think far too much about things like this. I just wanted to see if any ink experts or manufacturers could answer my queries.

 

I didn't mean to scream that the sky is falling; I was simply curious

[psfred]

There was a related post recently with some links to MSDS sheets for inks. The only things listed on the MSDS sheets I looked at appear to be biocides (the question was whether or not the inks contained phenol).

 

It's extremely unlikely that ink will cause any problems. You aren't going to drink it, the amounts of "solvents" in it are quite small (Noodler's bulletproofs probably contain an accelerator to enhance the reaction of the dyes with celluose but only flow modifiers other than that) and I would assume quite limited skin or ingestion exposure is likely. Unless you sit with an open bottle under your nose, significant exposure to evaporating "solvents" is going to be very limited, as you aren't putting that much ink down on paper while you write, unless you are flooding the pages with liquid ink and splashing it around.

 

Any known or suspected carcinogens will be listed on the MSDS, which should be available from the manufacturer upon request.

 

Peter

[Chris]

Don't panic

 

Although I have often heard it takes only one cell to start a cancer, and even that it only takes one molecule of a carcinogen to turn a cell into a cancer cell, a good friend and excellent toxicologist once said "Yes, that is true in theory. But the chance of that happening is about the same as a single knight successfully storming a fully-garrisoned mediaeval castle."

 

Dosis sola facit venenum - Paracelsus

 

Chris

[Ondina]

This is one of the most interesting questions posted in the forum. Given the diverse background of members here, some seem quite more concerned than others. Personally, I fully share your questions and views, and do not overlook the risks. From previous posts, it seems that only some manufacturers answer those questions upon request ( the ones that comply with strict national regulations, third party independent random quality tests, and ISO certifications).

[PJohnP]

Toxic solvents even in small doses over the decades of fountain pen use could result in problems. It takes ONE cell to start a cancerous growth, after all. As a nanoparticle researcher (before), a cancer immunologist (before) and an environmental microbiologist (now), I guess I just think far too much about things like this. I just wanted to see if any ink experts or manufacturers could answer my queries.

 

I didn't mean to scream that the sky is falling; I was simply curious

 

You've raised fair questions, but toxicity is very much related to dose. For example, you sprinkle salt (NaCl hopefully) on your food for taste, but something like 200g of salt would have acute toxic effects. Chronic effects are also reliant on dose, but over a significant period of time. This is why there are Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH), Short Term Exposure Limits (STEL), and Eight-hour-Time-Weighted-Average (8hr-TWA) exposure limits set into law, all of which relate to dose from short to longer periods. Those numbers are not magical, BTW, and are adjusted by national and international industrial hygiene associations from time-to-time.

 

I would suggest, as a professional in the field, that the toxic risk from fountain pen is dwarfed by other toxins in the household, workplace, and general environment, and that small ink splashes on the hands don't add perceptibly to the risk (assuming, of course, one isn't using some esoteric lead-based ink or ink solvents like MEK in bulk).

 

Now, cancer effects are a far more complex set of issues, and there are very vigorous debates on materials being carcinogenic. I won't get into Ames tests, genetic markers, and all of the various components still actively under discussion in the field, but suffice to say that there are many other materials (e.g., radon in homes, smoking tobacco) that pose a far greater risk (i.e., risk = hazard x probability) for your long term health. And don't forget that cancer occurs (roughly) as the cube of ratio of ages, that is, a person twice the age of another is eight times more likely to develop some form of cancer.

 

The good news is that when one looks at the age adjusted cancer rates, the vast majority of cancer types are declining. The perception by the public of increased rates is generally because of new media discussing the illnesses heavily, but also very much because as more people live to greater ages, a larger fraction of those people will ultimately pass away from or with some form of cancer (that cancer rate note above). Thus it's true that more people die from cancer at a higher age, but they (proportionally) have lived longer than people from decades past. I know that's confusing, but it's factually the case. There's a very active debate about the overall effects of aging vs. environmental factors that hasn't come close to detailed conclusions.

 

As I noted earlier, the entire discussion of causal factors for cancer is so complex that linking fountain pen ink into the debate would be almost impossible to draw scientific conclusions from in a reasonable manner. And, it's much more likely from a causal point of view that some other causal factors would prove dominant in a probabilistic perspective.

 

Are these reasonable questions to pose from you ? Yes, surely. Is there an enhanced acute or chronic toxicity risk with fountain pen ink as compared to other toxins in the general environment a person is exposed to ? The preponderance of data would say no.

 

 

 

John P.

[lapis]

Apart from the dosage story (which is already 500 years old), Paracelsus also said that even table salt can be toxic if you drink enough of it.

But let's say nobody (except some unwatched kiddies) is going to drink ink but only get it onto their hands.

Inks are still not toxic (at the doses you and your pens use) because however much biocides/phenols/alcohols/ketones (includiong acetone) and surfactants etc your inks contain, too much of them for too long a time will not poison you but they may somewhat denature the surface of the skin in question.

Denaturation here means a drying out, condensation, hardening of the skin like that which takes place on a mummification/shrivelling of tissues. Since that happens (if at all), it's only on the surface of your outside hand or finger tissue, the worst thing that can happen is that the skin will be temporarily so leathered out that no outside substances (like inks) can get into the blood vessels in your hands and fingres and thus have the opportunity of damaging any inside organs.

Sooo.... do not worry about getting any ink on your hands or fingers. If you ever do, just wash your skin as normal. Do avoid sulphuric acid and hydrogen perioxide, to name a few real culprits in regard to your skin.

 

Mike

[hbquikcomjamesl]

But let's say nobody (except some unwatched kiddies) is going to drink ink

Unless you're a Yink.

 

This one, I think, is called a Yink.

He likes to wink, he likes to drink.

He likes to drink, and drink, and drink.

The thing he likes to drink is ink.

The ink he likes to drink is pink.

He likes to wink and drink pink ink.

SO...if you have a lot of ink,

then you should get a Yink, I think.

--- from One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish

[ZeissIkon]

Risk is relative. If you ride a motorcycle, smoke, live in a city, participate in outdoor sports (especially those on the water), or like to eat grilled steaks, I certainly wouldn't worry about your risk from normal exposure to common inks. I'm an old school photographer, and deal with chemicals regularly -- some of which are fairly toxic (certain developing agents), corrosive (strong acids and bases used in mixing working chemicals), and known to be carcinogenic (one in particular, potassium dichromate, is the only one I routinely wear gloves to handle -- battery acid and lye crystals don't worry me much, but dichromate scares me) -- and I take comfort in knowing that, over the century of so in which film/chemical photography of the sort I practice was the only kind there was, photographers and photo lab workers had no shorter average lifespan than most occupations that didn't handle chemicals.

 

If you play golf, you've probably got a similar chance of being killed by lightning while on the golf course to you chance of being killed by a carcinogen or toxin in commercial ink. My doctor once told me that as long as I didn't smoke, he wasn't worried about any other lifestyle risks as long as I rode a motorcycle.

 

As others have said -- if you're not drinking the ink, or bathing in it, I wouldn't even worry about it. If you're curious, however, you could request the MSDS from the manufacturers and look it over.

[epv]

another old-school photographer here, and dichromate is the one I'm really wary of too, even though the literature on it has apparently been vaguely equivocal lately on the carcinogen question. I still don't want it anywhere near me. The only other is pyrogallol, to which Edward Weston's Parkinson's disease has been attributed, but who knows if that's true. However, an old photographer told me that when you get your bare hands in it, shortly afterward you can taste it in your mouth, and that's enough for me to not ever get it anywhere near my skin.

 

I've just been playing around with making iron gall inks (starting with refined gallic acid, not actual gall nuts) and the ingredients don't seem particularly harmful at all. Wikipedia claims gallic acid is an ingredient in hemorrhoid cream! heh.

[Chris]

Mint, your revelation brought to mind an indelicate response impuning the value of some things I have seen written elsewhere in this world, but this site might be viewed by sensitive souls so I washed my mind out

 

John P, indeed, do I recognise the words of a fellow proponent of the noble science of toxicology?

 

My personal view? The things that really frighten me are the ones that would interfere with my natural defence mechanisms not the so-called toxins themselves. Those I can handle, though my ability to do so diminishes with age (according to the cube ratio) thanks to an accumulation of errors.

 

Chris

[dizzypen]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I always wear latex gloves if I have to fill or flush more than one pen. It's not that I am concerned about absorbing chemicals into my body; I just hate having multiple ink stains on my hands.

[PJohnP]

John P, indeed, do I recognise the words of a fellow proponent of the noble science of toxicology?

 

Chris :

 

 

Among a few other areas of work, yes. I'm not a toxicologist as the first vocation, but it's been a regular part of the "day job" for a couple of decades plus.

 

 

 

John P.

[PJohnP]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I always wear latex gloves if I have to fill or flush more than one pen. It's not that I am concerned about absorbing chemicals into my body; I just hate having multiple ink stains on my hands.

 

 

This is a perfectly decent way of looking at the issue. Failing gloves, simply washing one's hands after getting ink stains on them will minimise adsorbed exposure through the skin, regardless of toxicity levels of ink.

 

 

 

John P.

[lapis]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I always wear latex gloves if I have to fill or flush more than one pen. It's not that I am concerned about absorbing chemicals into my body; I just hate having multiple ink stains on my hands.

Okay, I'm perverse!

 

I never use rubber gloves (although I still have lots of boxes of disposables [Powder Free], because I did work for the last 30 years in an institute of toxicology). I do all washes, rinses, emptyings and fillings either over a tray, or, in the sink. I actually love a few spots/stains of any ol' ink on my hands. Of course it doesn't have to be the whole hand. If I ever do get ink on me, I wash it off as fast as possible but a few stains as a sort of reminiscence do please me. However, a Sepia or Saffron usually won't do the trick.

 

Dick