Removing Shimmer from shimmer ink

[The_Beginner]

BOY, oh boy, this was quite the journey to figure out! I tested so many variants of devices and lost so much ink in the process. But in the end, it was worth it (at least, I think so)!

 

Let me share why I went on this journey. I love all inks, including shimmer inks. However, sometimes I prefer the base ink without the shimmer, but the equivalent non-shimmer version isn't available from the same company. Some inks are limited editions and only come in shimmer form. As we all know, shimmer inks are beautiful but a double-edged sword—they look amazing but are a pain to clean and are usually best suited for specific pens unless you dedicate one pen to shimmer ink. So, I embarked on a journey to remove the shimmer.

 

My first experiment involved using lab-grade filter paper, specifically Ahlstrom Qualitative Filter Paper Fast 11cm. This resulted in a lot of ink loss because the paper needed to absorb the ink to a critical point before it could start dripping when oversaturated. Initially, I thought this worked, but after leaving it for 20 minutes, the sample still had some shimmer in it.

 

As a good scientist, I retried the method twice more before declaring it a failure. I tried using up to 10 layers of paper, but the result was the same—lots of ink loss without fully removing the shimmer.

 

Next, I tried using an ultra-fine sieve to catch the shimmer particles, but that didn't work either.

Then, I attempted vacuum filtration, hoping the mica particles would crystallize on top. While some did, others still sneaked through.

 

I even tried densely packing the filter paper into a large syringe to use as a more contained filter, but that didn't work.

 

Frustrated, I was about to use a centrifuge. In theory, this worked, but the mica powder shimmer is easily disturbed. If you try this method, make sure to have the steadiest hands for syringe decanting. I don't have steady hands, so this was a fail for me.

 

Finally, I found a solution by going through my old lab notes. I used syringe filters with a 0.22μm pore size (thankfully, Amazon makes these easy to find). Using a PTFE Syringe Filter, I was able to slowly filter out the shimmer. I rigged the syringe with weights and rubber bands to keep the plunger down so it could filter slowly overnight, even while I was at work.

 

I'm pleased to present a shimmer-free version of J. Herbin Cornaline d'Egypte not in j herbin bottle as my little jerry rigged stand fits over a pelikan much better.

 

I'll share a writing sample once all the ink is shimmer-free, so stay tuned!

 

Thanks for reading, and happy inky thoughts! 

Edited August 4 by The_Beginner
typo

[LizEF]

  Thanks for this!  Love that we have scientists here to experiment on ink and tell us what's what.

[The_Beginner]

You're welcome i will let you know rn i only attempted this for 2 reasons one is listed in the post other is the inkvent calender cause some of those inks are mighty fine but i just hate cleaning the pens so often.

[Misfit]

Wow! Reading about your attempts was very interesting. I was hoping for an easy solution. Do you think the setup would be easy for a non-scientist?

[The_Beginner]

The set up would be easy if you get the syringe filters and a normal fp ink syringe listed above, all you need is a stand for the drip method to begin so that being said i overengineered it but you can use a clear plastic cup with a hole at the bottom snug enough to hold the syringe. then just alot of rubber bands and go, that would be the more easy route less thought behind it then you can self tweak it as you go on.

 

I will warn you can do it by hand the plunger and all but lord help you hand afterwards cause you will have to be pressing a mighty bit for the drop to be forced through the filter. Make sure there there is some air inbetween the ink and the plunger to give you some extra ooomf 

8 hours ago, Misfit said:

Wow! Reading about your attempts was very interesting. I was hoping for an easy solution. Do you think the setup would be easy for a non-scientist?

 

[The_Beginner]

IF you feel drip rate has decreased alot or you need insane pressure you should swap the filter with a new one. And of course after you finish doing the first round start a second and possibly 3 round to fully fully remove any trace lil fellas that may have sneaked through should be faster then 

 

[The_Beginner]

I suck at making sample so if anyone has tips on writing prompts or photography please let me know! I took two one with flash one without. I feel something else was taken as the drying time was a bit longer and i apologize for the mess in the background as this is my garage experimental table

[Uncial]

I cut the end off a conical coffe filter, put it in a small plastic funnel and pour the ink through. You lose a small bit of ink from the soakage, but not a great deal, and I've yet to have shimmer leak through.

[Paul-in-SF]

I find this very interesting, even though I don't use shimmer inks. 

 

I'm also not a chemist, so I don't know much about filter papers (56 years since college chemistry). I was surprised that the filter paper didn't catch all the shimmer. How did you determine (naked eye, magnification, chemical analysis) that there was shimmer left after those tests? About how much do you think was removed by the most rigorous application of filter paper? This is just curiosity -- you captured my interest.

[The_Beginner]

1 hour ago, Paul-in-SF said:

I find this very interesting, even though I don't use shimmer inks. 

 

I'm also not a chemist, so I don't know much about filter papers (56 years since college chemistry). I was surprised that the filter paper didn't catch all the shimmer. How did you determine (naked eye, magnification, chemical analysis) that there was shimmer left after those tests? About how much do you think was removed by the most rigorous application of filter paper? This is just curiosity -- you captured my interest.

In regard to the filter paper i did twofold one i did gross observation of the paper and then the distilled liquid with a high intensity light ( makes the shimmer really pop). The next part would be drop sample from varies depths on a slide and examined under a microscope. The only one with the least amount of loss of ink was the final test i performed with the syringe filters ( i will say as a disclaimer that does take quite a bit of time but the end result is minimal to no shimmer 2 passes should have all shimmer gone). I will say that the filter paper caught the larger shimmer  but the smaller fellas sneak on through. The filter paper i would say across the various different methods removed about 50% quickly but at the cost of ink and it didnt 100% clear all the shimmer.

[Paul-in-SF]

Fascinating, thanks. 

[The_Beginner]

Update 

 

 after running the Test sample through the filters an additional two time i can 97% +/- 3% all shimmer has been removed. Things i would change is the Surface area (SA) as more surface area allows it to filter more less filter swaps etc. Second ill test with slightly larger pore sizes to see if the extraction can be sped up as it does remove it but the time consumption is quite a hassle rn.

 

You may ask why the 3% rough error percentage on top samples analyzed i should note there was extreme trace shimmer that was found suspend in the top layer of the ink and at the corners of the bottle. Though minimal it should be noted.

On 8/6/2024 at 9:05 AM, Paul-in-SF said:

Fascinating, thanks. 

You're welcome

[mke]

@The_Beginner

I think you should have used a layer of filter aid material (diatomaceous earth, perlite or cellulose) on your filter paper. They can get out the mica "easily". This kind of filtration is called precoat filtration.

 

Mechanism

septum = filter paper (which has large pores, larger than a lot of the mica is)

 

[The_Beginner]

10 hours ago, mke said:

@The_Beginner

I think you should have used a layer of filter aid material (diatomaceous earth, perlite or cellulose) on your filter paper. They can get out the mica "easily". This kind of filtration is called precoat filtration.

 

Mechanism

septum = filter paper (which has large pores, larger than a lot of the mica is)

 

Ah i did thank you for the diagrams though, i used > 95% super refined α-cellulose and linter fibers from the ahlstrom company. Sadly it didn't remove all as i stated above though i didnt try perlite or diatomaceous earth. Ill attempt those and post results at a later date ty!

[grayautumnday]

Thank you!

 I'm super grateful for this topic... I'm assuming you used hydrophilic syringe filters, designed for liquids? Were they fast or slow filters? What material is the filtering media? Can you share a link?

 

I've been drudging through page after page of 0.22 micron syringe filter listings online - the reputable brands are so expensive and often on super slow shipping... I'm disabled and low income, but I'm unable to do the crafts I used to to manage pain and keep my mind active (processing raw textile fiber, spinning thread, knitting & weaving) because my nondominant hand is potentially permanently mostly out of commission now due to overuse and psoriatic arthritis... so I've taken to working on my handwriting and tinkering/modding pens and franken-inking using my vast cellulose dye collection 🤣 And I'm sterilizing and filtering REALLY old inks & ink bottles (1960s-80s) that seem to have escaped any sign of SITB but do have a bit of evaporation and sediment. I want to filter before adding more preservative and testing to see if I need to add humectant, surfactant, buffer pH, maybe modify rheology a touch.

 

please save me from wading through any more fake positive & negative reviews to find something that a non-bot tried that worked? 
 

thank you for posting your lab notes!!!

[The_Beginner]

4 hours ago, grayautumnday said:

Thank you!

 I'm super grateful for this topic... I'm assuming you used hydrophilic syringe filters, designed for liquids? Were they fast or slow filters? What material is the filtering media? Can you share a link?

 

I've been drudging through page after page of 0.22 micron syringe filter listings online - the reputable brands are so expensive and often on super slow shipping... I'm disabled and low income, but I'm unable to do the crafts I used to to manage pain and keep my mind active (processing raw textile fiber, spinning thread, knitting & weaving) because my nondominant hand is potentially permanently mostly out of commission now due to overuse and psoriatic arthritis... so I've taken to working on my handwriting and tinkering/modding pens and franken-inking using my vast cellulose dye collection 🤣 And I'm sterilizing and filtering REALLY old inks & ink bottles (1960s-80s) that seem to have escaped any sign of SITB but do have a bit of evaporation and sediment. I want to filter before adding more preservative and testing to see if I need to add humectant, surfactant, buffer pH, maybe modify rheology a touch.

 

please save me from wading through any more fake positive & negative reviews to find something that a non-bot tried that worked? 
 

thank you for posting your lab notes!!!

Sorry for your hand, but im glad this post finds ya in good health regardless, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B7BLCYXY/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1 this was the exact brand/link i purchased myself, i will warn you that they are slow filters, so if you can jerry rig something  to be able to hold down on the syringe plunger so you dont have to then you should be savvy.

 

Edit: I  am using the non sterile variants as, im not running a lab experiment which overall brings down the cost tremendously.

Edited September 11 by The_Beginner
more info

[The_Beginner]

Just a small bit of info, ill be updating this experiment with more information soon but i wanted to add these pics from the 1st experiment that i clearly forgot. The big splotch was due to a huge build up in the syringe that when filter was removed just poofed on the plate

[grayautumnday]

Those filters are super dinky, like 13mm? How many ml do you get through each of them? I was filtering concentrated fiber reactive dye solution that had already been filtered at 1mic and 0.45mic - even with a 25mm (I tried both hydrophilic nylon and hydrophobic ptfe - oddly the ptfe worked better than the nylon) and could only a filter a maximum of 2-3 ml per filter before each got too blocked.

Not the same as filtering mica or glitter, but it was still discouraging that with nearly $40 worth of filters, I only got about eight 4-ml color concentrated filtered. 

 

Next time, I plan to get the 35 (33?) mm diameter filters - I'm beginning to see that it's actually more economical to spend more to get more filtering done.
 

My budget for experimenting with filtering dyes is busted for at least the next year though. It was a useful though very slightly disappointing lesson

 

 Thanks for posting your experience!

[The_Beginner]

5 hours ago, grayautumnday said:

Those filters are super dinky, like 13mm? How many ml do you get through each of them? I was filtering concentrated fiber reactive dye solution that had already been filtered at 1mic and 0.45mic - even with a 25mm (I tried both hydrophilic nylon and hydrophobic ptfe - oddly the ptfe worked better than the nylon) and could only a filter a maximum of 2-3 ml per filter before each got too blocked.

 

Never tried it on concentrated reactive dye solution, mainly on the mica from shimmer inks, with the mica from shimmer inks it worked out across 20 ml with some steady pressure 3±1 filter to work though when i have time ill post some updated findings.

 

Issue with the dye solution is that they are .5 to 2 microns in size on avg with my current filter method is 0.22μm so as you can deduce the solution has a much larger size sadly as such you may not be extracting as efficiently as you would with shimmer. As shimmer is more fine the 0.22μm is more applicable for it.

 

EDIT: the 13mm diameter is more for SA with more SA( surface area you may get more on avg but other factors in the ink/dye may be more filtered out or diluted so be aware of this, though i haven't tried it a .4 to .30μm size pore may be more efficient in those regards.