Plastic ink bottles

[paulrbarnard]

There seems to be more plastic bottles turning up for inks now. I was just reading biffybeans latest ink review and that ink was in a plastic bottle.

 

I'm really not sure about this trend. I like the weight of a glass bottle as it makes it less likely to have an accident resulting in a spill. I can see that it might make it a bit cheaper and certainly lighter which will help shipping in bulk. I wonder at the 'eco' credentials of plastic as well. On the whole though I don't really like this direction.

 

What about you?

 

edit: Sorry I thought I was in Inky Thoughts not the reviews section. Apologies for the miss placed post

Edited May 28, 2009 by paulrbarnard

[GreenVelvet]

Good gravy, I prefer glass so strongly I'm happy to pay the extra shipping for it!

 

None of my inks are in plastic, and I think I'd get really cranky if I discovered a plastic bottle on an ink I like. Yuck.

[PJohnP]

I generally prefer glass, as some polymers (plastics) tend to have plasticisers that migrate into the fluid inside the bottle unless the polymer has a sealing layer. You see this kind of two-layer system in some food product containers as an example. However, most food containers don't sit in a drawer or on a shelf over many months, and as such, migration of the plasticisers isn't as much of a problem (alternately, Google for phthalate migration in containers for more dire situations).

 

Are plasticisers in ink a problem ? Hard to say. Certainly, contaminants aren't desirable, but the levels of plasticiser contamination would likely be in the Parts Per Million (PPM) level at worst, and wouldn't markedly change the colligative properties (e.g., viscosity, surface tension, freezing point) of the liquid. In most cases, the plasticisers wouldn't have a substantial effect on the polymers in the pen construction nor on the metallic components.

 

But.

 

There's a very small but non-zero probability that the plasticisers could have some chemical interaction with an ink component with possible sedimentation or colour change. Nothing critically awful, perhaps, but some shifts could occur. That very low probability drops substantially for storage in a clean silica glass container.

 

So I personally prefer glass containers.

 

YMMV, or in Canada, the L/100km may change...

 

 

 

John P.

[GardenWeasel]

If my favorites inks were to go 'plastic' - I'd have to just go ahead and buy that 2nd lifetime supply now! (just in case my first lifetime supply isn't enough....)

[dandelion]

I think plastic bottles are convenient - especially the small Diamine 30 ml. Perfect for travelling and for use at home I transfer the ink to a glass bottle and use the plastics when I'm on the move. I see them as lightweight refills.

[dogpoet]

I generally prefer glass, as some polymers (plastics) tend to have plasticisers that migrate into the fluid inside the bottle unless the polymer has a sealing layer. You see this kind of two-layer system in some food product containers as an example. However, most food containers don't sit in a drawer or on a shelf over many months, and as such, migration of the plasticisers isn't as much of a problem (alternately, Google for phthalate migration in containers for more dire situations).

 

Are plasticisers in ink a problem ? Hard to say. Certainly, contaminants aren't desirable, but the levels of plasticiser contamination would likely be in the Parts Per Million (PPM) level at worst, and wouldn't markedly change the colligative properties (e.g., viscosity, surface tension, freezing point) of the liquid. In most cases, the plasticisers wouldn't have a substantial effect on the polymers in the pen construction nor on the metallic components.

 

But.

 

There's a very small but non-zero probability that the plasticisers could have some chemical interaction with an ink component with possible sedimentation or colour change. Nothing critically awful, perhaps, but some shifts could occur. That very low probability drops substantially for storage in a clean silica glass container.

 

So I personally prefer glass containers.

 

YMMV, or in Canada, the L/100km may change...

 

 

 

John P.

Interesting points, Josh, but isn't there going to be a problem with the water content of the ink osmosing out through the plastic eventually? It's a very long process (I've a few thirty year old Parker cartridges that are still half full) but is increasing the concentration of the solution, however gradually, going to harm your pens?

(That said, I do think those diamine 30 millilitre bottles are great.)

[PJohnP]

Interesting points, Josh, but isn't there going to be a problem with the water content of the ink osmosing out through the plastic eventually? It's a very long process (I've a few thirty year old Parker cartridges that are still half full) but is increasing the concentration of the solution, however gradually, going to harm your pens?

(That said, I do think those diamine 30 millilitre bottles are great.)

 

It's John, actually. :blink:

 

Different issues to ponder in what you've proposed, to be sure. Water diffusion through polymers is another fascinating discussion, but the timeframes are quite divergent. Plasticiser migration into the fluid is probably two to three orders of magnitude - that's a factor of 100 to 1000 times - more rapid than water diffusion into and through the polymer walls (unless we're getting really really thin plastic bottles of ink here !).

 

You can actually test this with solvents in plastic bottles, even glass cleaners in certain polymer bottles. Over a period of months, glass cleaners can lose some of their "squeaky-clean" ability - even when tightly sealed and in a dark location - because the ammonia (and often alcohol as well) solvent dissolves plasticisers and these then deposit on glass being "cleaned" leaving a smeary sheen. Good manufacturers don't use these polymers in their bottles, but if the glass cleaner is moved into another plastic bottle...

 

I seriously doubt that we'll see "archival inks" in plastic bottles some fifty years from now as we see inks in glass bottles, that is, inks that are often still quite usable. I'd be pleased to be proven wrong on this estimation, in all truth.

 

I do, however, take on and heartily endorse Dandelion's comment about using the plastic bottles for travel as a fair use of these. On even middling length trips, it's unlikely to develop the kinds of issues for long term storage, and makes perfectly logical sense.

 

 

 

John P.

[chemgeek]

Is the difference in cost between plastic and glass packaging really so much that it affects profitability? I find the use of plastic packaging for this application quite disappointing. It is difficult to design a plastic bottle that will best a glass container for this purpose.

 

Depending on the composition of the plastic, the evaporation of water could be significant. It is not unusual for the plastic crystallography trays I use at work to lose 0.5 mL of water in a month or so. These are not exactly thin, and are probably mostly polycarbonate. If you don't use up a bottle of ink in a year, the water loss and concentration of the ink could be significant, causing precipitation of the dyes, especially for less soluble colors. Some plastics are less porous than others, but I suspect none are as non-porous as glass. (Maybe thick teflon, but that's expensive, and non-transparent.) The other issue to worry about is the embrittlement of the plastic containers over time. It could ruin your whole day to have a plastic container crack and leak.

 

Glass is a very nice material: clear, cheap, non-porous, and often quite strong as well. It lasts indefinitely, yet is recyclable. It also doesn't needlessly consume petroleum. The plastic caps on your ink bottle will disintegrate centuries before the glass is unusuable.

 

Cheers.

 

[Gehaha]

I think plastic bottles are convenient - especially the small Diamine 30 ml. Perfect for travelling and for use at home I transfer the ink to a glass bottle and use the plastics when I'm on the move. I see them as lightweight refills.

Just the way, I do.

 

 

[PJohnP]

Is the difference in cost between plastic and glass packaging really so much that it affects profitability? I find the use of plastic packaging for this application quite disappointing. It is difficult to design a plastic bottle that will best a glass container for this purpose.

 

I think it's more the net shipping weight difference in some cases that makes the larger difference, but the materials difference combined with the shipping cost difference probably drives this switch for some companies.

 

Depending on the composition of the plastic, the evaporation of water could be significant. It is not unusual for the plastic crystallography trays I use at work to lose 0.5 mL of water in a month or so. These are not exactly thin, and are probably mostly polycarbonate. If you don't use up a bottle of ink in a year, the water loss and concentration of the ink could be significant, causing precipitation of the dyes, especially for less soluble colors. Some plastics are less porous than others, but I suspect none are as non-porous as glass. (Maybe thick teflon, but that's expensive, and non-transparent.) The other issue to worry about is the embrittlement of the plastic containers over time. It could ruin your whole day to have a plastic container crack and leak.

Hard call on the polymers there. Bottle materials aren't intended for the same purpose pretty obviously as your trays (X-ray or optical?), and have different properties. The physical configuration of the trays and the bottles are also quite different. That said, water losses aren't insignificant either, and the ink companies aren't going to have happy sellers if the bottles let too much diffuse through the polymer bottles and create a net less of level.

 

Hmmm... This could be a great experiment to run. We just need to get each of the ink companies to donate a complete... No, no, two complete sets of their ink lines (one for you and one for me), and we could test the effects of time for evaporation and diffusion effects (controlling the effects, of course, of withdrawals for other tests with strict measurements). Well, actually, maybe we need four complete sets, one each as an "evaporation control", and one each to look at the effects of "partially used bottle diffusion and evaporation effects"... Yes, yes, this is becoming clearer by the moment. Two great minds working at a distance to collaborate in this... :hmm1:

 

Embittlement shouldn't occur if the polymer is either intrinsically a highly flexible polymer, is dosed with sufficient plasticiser (back to that stuff !), or a combination of the two. Of course, if we leave the polymer bottle in a good high level of UV for some time... But now we're back to getting more sets of ink for the experiments !

 

But cost factors drive other decisions, and I'd hazard a guess that these are influencing many ink makers to contemplate a change, regardless of what the users think. :bonk:

 

Glass is a very nice material: clear, cheap, non-porous, and often quite strong as well. It lasts indefinitely, yet is recyclable. It also doesn't needlessly consume petroleum. The plastic caps on your ink bottle will disintegrate centuries before the glass is unusuable.

Agreed on all but the petroleum, given that recycling glass is pretty energy intensive, and many facilities use natural gas as a fuel. Still, the net energy and material balance is a good one for glass, and, by gosh, I personally prefer glass.

 

And, BTW, I quite like your FPN handle, sir !

 

 

 

John "Better Living Through Chemistry" P.

 

[pmsalty]

Glass bottles plastic bottles

PMS

[Ada]

I definitely prefer glass bottles. And I always buy items packaged in glass rather than plastic when I have a choice. So I don't buy inks in plastic bottles, and probably won't until the last ink manufacturer switches entirely to plastic.

[altecniblick]

It's just not right. It's like the discussion on having wine in plastic bottles. Neither seems particularly palatable.

[MiniMaupassant]

I think plastic bottles are convenient - especially the small Diamine 30 ml. Perfect for travelling and for use at home I transfer the ink to a glass bottle and use the plastics when I'm on the move. I see them as lightweight refills.

 

 

Me too.

 

Although the glass bottles look fantastic on my desk, they are not the most practical thing to cart about with me. Therefore, the little Diamine bottles are perfect for being portable.

 

However, I do take on board the comments regarding green credentials and hope that manufacturers don't switch from glass to plastic across the piece; that would be very sad indeed.

[Vipul]

I think plastic bottles are convenient - especially the small Diamine 30 ml. Perfect for travelling and for use at home I transfer the ink to a glass bottle and use the plastics when I'm on the move. I see them as lightweight refills.

 

Yes, that is how I treat my Diamine bottles too. Cheaper than a Visconti's Traveling Inkpot.

 

[lapis]

What do I think about them?

I love my 1/2 oz = 15 ml Nalgene baby filled up which I always carry around with me in my pocket.

 

Mike <-- hasn't leaked or got broken yet!

[Titivillus]

What about cartridges? A bottle is just a large one of those.

 

K

[dogpoet]

It's John, actually. :blink:

Sorry, John. I beg your pardon.

[encremental]

One current curiosity is that since Visconti have changed their much loved (by other people- always seemed like an accident waiting to happen to me ) glass bottle to a rather nasty plastic but similarly shaped version, you now have the privilege of paying £9.30 ($15) for 40ml of ink in the new bottle or £3.45 ($5.50) for 50ml in the square plastic Diamine-style refill bottle. No, doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

John

[jbn10161]

my 1/2 oz = 15 ml Nalgene baby filled up which I always carry around with me in my pocket.

Where did you find a 15ml Nalgene bottle? The smallest wide-mouth HDPE bottle I could locate was 30ml.