Pilot Namiki Ink - I Smell Phenol !

[SamCapote]

I was checking both my Pilot blue and Namiki blue which appear to be the same color, but what struck me was a distinct smell of Phenol which I had thought all the ink makers stopped using long ago. It is an unmistakable odor, and an excellent biocide. This just surprised me.

[hobobaggins]

That's quite alarming, as phenol is quite toxic... Though it wouldn't stop me using it.

[Yoda4561]

That's quite alarming, as phenol is quite toxic... Though it wouldn't stop me using it.

 

 

Apparently phenol is used in throat spray too, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[LedZepGirl]

I like the way Phenol smells... I hope that's not a bad thing. :embarrassed_smile: Old ink smells better than its newer counterparts and it works better too, in some cases.

[Gobblecup]

On a related note, I am wanting to try a whole bottle of Namiki blue, so far I've just used cartridges of Namiki blue. I like the bottle design!

[KCat]

That's quite alarming, as phenol is quite toxic... Though it wouldn't stop me using it.

 

Alcohol, tylenol, [insert thousands of chemicals used daily] are also toxic but we still ingest them. It's about exposure levels. Phenol is, in fact, in Islay scotch whiskey (a drink I am not familiar with). Two, two, two toxins in one!

 

I seriously doubt small amounts in ink are putting us at much risk anymore than the occasional drink of alcohol of any kind is putting us at much risk. If you're snorting from the bottle daily - you probably should reconsider that. IMO, as with all chemicals, common sense is the key. Don't drink your Penman ink (or PR Ebony Green which smells suspiciously like Penman Emerald but milder) and wash it from your hands after inking (if you're a messy inker). But, don't panic and run to the ER if you smell a whiff of it as you ink your pen. Clearly, from the info below, small amounts are considered acceptable in various cases.

 

Among the scary stuff on this page is this info:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg115.html

 

Sources/Uses

 

Phenol is obtained by fractional distillation of coal tar and by organic synthesis. By far, its largest single use is in manufacture of phenolic resins and plastics. Other uses include manufacture of explosives, fertilizers, paints, rubber, textiles, adhesives, drugs, paper, soap, wood preservatives, and photographic developers. When mixed with slaked lime and other reagents, phenol is an effective disinfectant for toilets, stables, cesspools, floors, and drains.

 

Phenol was once an important antiseptic and is still used as a preservative in injectables. It also is used as an antipruritic, a cauterizing agent, a topical anesthetic, and as a chemical skin-peeler (chemexfoliant). It can be found in low concentrations in many over-the-counter products including preparations for treatment of localized skin disorders (Castellani's paint, PRID salve, CamphoPhenique lotion), in topical preparations (Sting-Eze), and in throat sprays and lozenges (Chloraseptic, Ambesol, Cepastat, Cheracol).

Edited December 19, 2010 by KCat

[hobobaggins]

I was concerned mainly because phenol is toxic to pretty much every surface of our bodies and it really shouldn't be used in a "common" product such as ink. Especially products that children are exposed to. Hopefully the ink contains a much less-toxic phenol derivative rather than actual phenol. (I think that the phenol products mentioned above that aren't the whiskey are in fact phenol derivatives rather than "real" phenol, but I know not)

 

As I said though, the toxic properties wouldn't stop me using the ink ^^

[SamCapote]

I was concerned mainly because phenol is toxic to pretty much every surface of our bodies and it really shouldn't be used in a "common" product such as ink. Especially products that children are exposed to. Hopefully the ink contains a much less-toxic phenol derivative rather than actual phenol. (I think that the phenol products mentioned above that aren't the whiskey are in fact phenol derivatives rather than "real" phenol, but I know not)

 

As I said though, the toxic properties wouldn't stop me using the ink ^^

 

There is much misinformation and overreaction about many chemicals and formulations that were tested under ridiculous extremely high doses and in ways that bear no resemblance to normal use. Phenol is a perfect example of this. Take a look at Chloraseptic throat spray which has somehow remained beyond the clutches of the hyper-regulatory types. Then stop and think about it for a minute...if something that has had FDA approval is approved to spray into your throat, why would you worry about it in an ink, if also used in reasonable doses?

[Readymade]

Besides, it's not like you're gonna drink your ink

[corniche]

Hello Sam,

 

Yes, I know- it does seem ridiculous. At first, I thought they banned it for the worker's benefit- after all, they are exposed to these chemicals in their undiluted, full strength form and in large quantities; however, that doesn't check out either- what about the poor workers at the Cloraseptic factory? (Of course, the one caveat here may be that pharmaceutical grade Phenol is less toxic then industrial grade Phenol… I don’t know… just a guess).

 

I think the Japanese inks get around it because they are made in Japan, where they have more realistic codes. It's only the Americans and Western Europeans that have lost their common sense.

 

All the best,

 

Sean

[SamCapote]

Hello Sam,

 

Yes, I know- it does seem ridiculous. At first, I thought they banned it for the worker's benefit- after all, they are exposed to these chemicals in their undiluted, full strength form and in large quantities; however, that doesn't check out either- what about the poor workers at the Cloraseptic factory? (Of course, the one caveat here may be that pharmaceutical grade Phenol is less toxic then industrial grade Phenol… I don't know… just a guess).

 

I think the Japanese inks get around it because they are made in Japan, where they have more realistic codes. It's only the Americans and Western Europeans that have lost their common sense.

 

All the best,

 

Sean

 

Well there are many highly toxic chemicals, drugs, radiation, etc. that may be used for research, government contracts, or other approved uses. Many USA factories and chemical companies still make Phenol which is likely more toxic in the pure ACS or USP grades. In the case of Phenol, it is the concentration of the solution, and inappropriate exposure at high concentrations (respiratory, skin, etc. that determines risk--90% liquid ACS is the same potency as USP on a practical exposure basis) There are specific OSHA handling guidelines specified in MSDS documents that allow safe handling...including at the Chloraseptic factory. What makes the amount of Phenol in Chloraseptic throat spray safe to use is the 1.46% by weight. There is even an FDA approved Children's Grape Flavored Chloraseptic to be used EVERY 2 HOURS for AGES 2-11 that has an even more dilute 0.5% amount of Phenol.

 

Remember this is being sprayed INSIDE of your mouth. I can't imagine a better safety indicator of low doses of a chemical like Phenol...yet it is banned from being used in ink that goes from a pen to paper.

[hobobaggins]

I was under the impression that phenol had a near 1:1 ratio of toxcic concentration to bactericidal concentration. This means that the risk/benefit of using phenol instead of another bactericidal agent is relatively high, especially when so many other agents will work better (don't know how any would perform in ink though). Unfortunately I cannot find any phenol coefficient tests to support my claims or any related effective dose vs toxicity, so I will exit this debate.

Edited December 20, 2010 by hobobaggins

[Bookman]

I used to be an industrial-grade phenol addict. Now I'm a pharmaceutical-grade phenol addict.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bookman

[corniche]

I used to be an industrial-grade phenol addict. Now I'm a pharmaceutical-grade phenol addict.

 

You'll find as you go through life, that it always pays to buy the best.

 

All the best,

 

Sean

[SamCapote]

I was under the impression that phenol had a near 1:1 ratio of toxcic concentration to bactericidal concentration. This means that the risk/benefit of using phenol instead of another bactericidal agent is relatively high, especially when so many other agents will work better (don't know how any would perform in ink though). Unfortunately I cannot find any phenol coefficient tests to support my claims or any related effective dose vs toxicity, so I will exit this debate.

 

I have never heard of such a terms as xxx has "a near 1:1 ratio of toxcic concentration to bactericidal concentration" nor does it make any sense to me. If you are saying that the dose needed to kill bacterial is the same dose that is harmful to human health, you have to define how the human health is being impacted. The available Sporicidin Disinfectant Solution containing the same 1.46% amount of Phenol will kill any and all bacteria and fungus (but not their spores) when sprayed on surfaces, yet is the same Phenol concentration as in Chloraseptic. I regard that as an extremely high ratio of bactericidall/fungicidal/virucidal activity vs. human health risks.

 

In other words, it kills all common microorganisms very effectively with extremely minimal risk to humans, since that is the same phenol concentration that can be sprayed in a person's mouth every 2 hours. People have been led to believe many things like the toxicity and dangerous nature of Phenol even in low concentrations because of overzealous regulators, rather than understanding effects related to concentration and manner if introduction/proper use. A similar example of the same nonsense was the elimination of Mercurocrome because it had the evil mercury in its formulation.

[hobobaggins]

The available Sporicidin Disinfectant Solution containing the same 1.46% amount of Phenol will kill any and all bacteria and fungus (but not their spores) when sprayed on surfaces, yet is the same Phenol concentration as in Chloraseptic. I regard that as an extremely high ratio of bactericidall/fungicidal/virucidal activity vs. human health risks.

That is probably the crux of our difference. Thank you for taking the time to explain.