Effects of Alkyleneoxides on Development (II)

Behaviour on Aerated PQ Developer

Abstract

Photographic behaviours of polyethyleneoxides were investigated using three kinds of films, -F-Ias a control, F-II containing an amphotheric polyethylene oxide (AEO), and F-III containing a polyethylene oxide alkylphenol ether (EO) and a cationic surfactant (C), of which chemical constitutions are shown in Table I.
AEO or EO had always a sensitizing effect for a development by D-76, while they had a sensitizing effect at an initial stage of a development or a low exposed region but had a desensitizing effect at a later stage of it and in addition a high exposed region for a development by either N.S.G.(high pH MQ) or PQ developer (Fig.1-3).
AEO or EO added to an emulsion was washed out of the emulsion layer by washing with running water but when the film was immersed to a solution with high content of salts or to a developer solution, they flew out so little that the sensitizing effect by AEO or EO was not lost (Fig. 4-6). So, we need not to consider any change of the photographic character of F-II caused by decrease of AEO concentration during a development.
After washing, the density of F-III was higher than that of F-I and F-II. This fact means that the cationic surfactant didn't flew out but remained adsorbed, so the cationic character of AEO for adsorption is very weak. This is ascribed to its tetrahedral constitution around the nitrogen atom and to have hydrophilic long chains. The negative charge of -CH₂O00- is not a major factor because the same result was obtained when -CH₂O00- was substituted by -CH₂C₆H₅.
The PQ developer without buffer was aerated of which degree of oxydation was estimated 1) by measurement of pH and titration by HCl solution and 2) by analysis of HQ using difference of ultraviolet absorption before and after extraction by butyl acetate. It was concluded that HQ was completely oxydized when pH of the solution reached to 11 (Fig. 7). To the aerated developer, borax and boric acid were added and pH was adjusted to 8.8, just before the development. Fig. 8-10 which give the results of the developments, show that the sensitizing effect by either AEO or EO was lost as the developer was aerated upto pH 11 and that the desensitizing effects by them increased as pH of developer was beyond 10.5. This means the sensitizing actions of them are exhibited only for HQ, contrary to the result of a develpment with HQ alone by H. W. Wood. This conclusion was confirmed by the following two experiments. In the first place, a time-density curves of developments by a developer solution aerated to pH 12.3 and then adjusted pH to 8.8 are given in Fig. 11. To this developer solution, lg/1 of HQ was added and films were develped, of which a result was shown in Fig. 12. By addition of HQ to the developer, F-II and F-III recovered the sensitizing effect. In the second place, PHQMS developer solution in which HQ of PQ developer solution was substituted by the equimolecular sodium hydroquinone monosulfonate, was used and the result was shown in Fig. 13. In this case, the sensitizing effect of either AEO or EO has almost been lost and the desensitizing effect magnified.