| Pages:
1
2 |
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
Fluorine gas non-electrical production
so does this mean fluorine can be made this way too.
i seem to not find this any where of using copper fluoride to make fluorine gas
Copper fluoride can be synthesised from copper and fluorine at temperatures of 400 °C.
Cu + F2 → CuF2
It loses fluorine in molten stage at temperatures above 950 °C.
2CuF2 → 2CuF + F2
2CuF → CuF2 + Cu
yet it seems that it can be made from this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp_gNDx-xqM
using HF acid and copper hydroxide
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by symboom]
|
|
|
plante1999
International Hazard
Posts: 1936
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as a hatter
|
|
You are very crazy , dont make F2 it will kill you in matter of seconde.............
please , dont make F2.
I never asked for this.
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
your right im not going to make it i know a lot of reading the dangers of it able to light anything on fire pretty much very nasty gas just wandering
if this is possible don't worry i defendantly wont make it too dangerous.
saying this is the only way non electrochemically
2 K2MnF6 + 4 SbF5 → 4 KSbF6 + 2 MnF3 + F2↑
i am just trying to add things up
|
|
|
Mixell
Hazard to Others
Posts: 449
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What is the point of this thread....?
No question is asked and there is no elaboration on any method of production of fluorine (which isn't a great idea either).
You just copied something from Wikipedia, and the youtube video you posted is hilariously dangerous, evaporating something that can contain HF (if not
enough copper hydroxide is added) over a strong heat source...
Edit- Well, of course its possible, you got a reaction and the conditions of the reaction, what is the question here?
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by Mixell]
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
but yeah that kind of was my question
im just interested it the history of the elements like i said im not making it at all don't have the necessary containment and equipment just
wondering if any one came across the patent which your right i got to be more clear with what i state.
excerpt: Hydrofluoric acid is corrosive to human tissue, absorbs through skin, selectively attacks bone and stimulates pain nerves, and causes a
potentially lethal poisoning. yeah i am not that crazy
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by symboom]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In another topic, one of the posters had a book which stated that MnF3 decomposed to MnF2, fiving off fluorine gas above 250°C. This would be a much
more reasonable temperature to obtain, if it is indeed true, than 950 °C.
Probably would want to use a monel (nickel-steel alloy) distillation setup.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=144#pi...
But I have doubts as to whether this is actually true, since
Karl Christe discovered a purely chemical preparation of fluorine in 1986, and wikipedia claims such methods were not previously thought possible.
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
Neil
National Hazard
Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@ Anders, Monel is Copper-Nickle
@ symboom, If you check this page http://www.fluoride-history.de/p-fluorine.htm
You will see this
Production of Elemental Fluorine
1900
SOCIÉTÉ POULENC FRÈRES and MAURICE MESLANS, Paris: "Apparat zur elektrolytischen Darstellung von Fluor", German Patent (DE) 129,825; filed June 27,
1900; granted April 14, 1902
1919
Frank C. MATHERS, Bloomington, Indiana: "Method of making fluorine", US Patent 1,484,733; filed June 30, 1919; granted Feb. 26, 1924; and "Method and
apparatus for making fluorine", US Patent 1,484,734; filed July 7, 1919; pat. Feb. 26, 1924
1926
Paul Marie Alfred LEBEAU, Massy, and Augustin Amédée Joseph DAMIENS, Sévres, France: "Elektrolytische Herstellung von Fluor", German Patent (DE)
476,732; filed Dec. 7, 1926; granted June 19, 1929
1928
Karl FREDENHAGEN, Greifswald: "Verfahren zur elektrolytischen Gewinnung von Fluor", German Patent (DE) 493,873; filed July 18, 1928; granted March 20,
1930; and DE 511,808; filed July 18, 1928; granted Nov. 5, 1930; and US Patent 1,866,969; "Electrolytic Production of Fluorine"; filed July 11, 1929;
granted July 12, 1932
1929
Heinz KREKELER, assignor to I.G. Farbenindustrie Akt.-Ges., Frankfurt: "Verfahren zur Herstellung von gasförmigem Fluor", German Patent (DE) 522,885;
filed Dec. 6, 1929; pat. Apr. 16, 1931
1930
Arthur CARPMAEL, as communicated by I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt, Germany: "Process for the electrolytic manufacture of gaseous
fluorine", British Patent GB 346,774; filed Jan. 9, 1930; granted April 9, 1931
Friedrich-August HENGLEIN, Friedrich-Wilhelm STAUF, assignors to I.G. Farbenindustrie, Aktiengesellschaft of Frankfurt: "Herstellung von Fluor",
German Patent (DE) 555,528, filed May 17, 1930; granted July 7, 1932
Heinz KREKELER, Berlin, assignor to I.G. Farbenindustrie, Aktiengesellschaft of Frankfort-on-the-Main, Germany: "Manufacture of Fluorine", US Patent
1,863,661; filed Dec. 4, 1930; granted June 21, 1932
1932
William S. CALCOTT and Anthony F. BENNING, Pennsgrove, N.J., assignors to E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, Delaware: "Process and
Apparatus", US Patent 2,034,458; filed Oct. 31, 1932; granted March 17, 1936
1943
Walter C. SCHUMB, Milton, and Arthur J. STEVENS, Holliston, Mass., assignors, by mesne assignments, to United States of America, as represented by the
Director, Office of Scientific Research and Development: "Production of Fluorine", US Patent 2,422,590; filed Jan. 21, 1943; granted June 17, 1947
1944
Ralph C. DOWNING, Wilmington,.Del., assignor to the United States of America as represented by the United States Atomic Energy Commission:
"Manufacture of Fluorine by Electrolysis", US Patent 2,540,248; filed Oct. 31, 1944; granted Feb. 6, 1951
1946
George C. WHITAKER, Brooklyn Heights, Ohio, assignor to the United States of America as represented by the United States Atomic Energy Commission:
"Electrolytic Process for Production of Fluorine", US Patent 2,506,438; filed May 14, 1946; granted May 2, 1950
1947
Carl F. SWINEHART, University Heights, Ohio, assignor to the Harshaw Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio: "Electrolytic Production of Fluorine", US
Patent 2,534,638; filed Dec. 17, 1947; granted Dec. 19, 1950
1949
William Norman HOWELL, Hale, Liverpool, and Harold HILL, Runcorn, England, assignors to Imperial Chemical Industries Limited: "Process for the
electrolytic production of fluorine", US Patent 2,592,144; filed May 11, 1949; granted April 8, 1952
1952
William T. GRUBB jr., Schenectady, N.Y., assignor to General Electric Company: "Electrolytic method of producing fluorine or fluorine oxide", US
Patent 2,716,632; filed Feb. 21, 1952; granted Aug. 30, 1955
1974
Peter KAUDEWITZ, and Hubert FRIEDRICH, both of Bad Wimpfen, Germany, assignors to Kali-Chemie Fluor GmbH, of Bad Wimpfen, Germany: "Process for the
production of elemental fluorine by electrolysis", US Patent 3,860,504; filed March 12, 1974; pat. Jan. 14, 1975
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No this is not true. It's a little bit 'hyped'. Yes it is very toxic, more toxic than Cl2 or Br2, but for example, phosgene still much more toxic than
F2.
F2 is very hard to handle though due to it's reactivity.
The best way would be CoF3, wich decomposes to F2 on easily attained temps. It can be bought for a little more than 1 EUR per gram from Aldrich.
I remember GC had a specific chem in mind wich decomposes to F2, and wanted to make it with his HF? I think it was K3HPbF8 or something like that.
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by Jor]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This guy Publios (from the video) is a nutcase: to dry this CuF2 on the hob when he doesn't even know whether he's reacted away all the HF or not, is
asking for sudden death or at least permanently reduced lung capacity for life.
HF doesn't just cause 'burns on the skin': inhaled it is extremely lethal...
And anyone here contemplating making F2 in a home setting requires sectioning to a very secure madhouse...
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  | This guy Publios (from the video) is a nutcase: to dry this CuF2 on the hob when he doesn't even know whether he's reacted away all the HF or not, is
asking for sudden death or at least permanently reduced lung capacity for life.
HF doesn't just cause 'burns on the skin': inhaled it is extremely lethal...
And anyone here contemplating making F2 in a home setting requires sectioning to a very secure madhouse... |
i totally agree with you excess copper hydroxide is absolutely necessary as it is negligible solubility in water to make sure it is fully reacted then
adding acetone to help dry it as copper fluoride is insoluble in it.
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | This guy Publios (from the video) is a nutcase: to dry this CuF2 on the hob when he doesn't even know whether he's reacted away all the HF or not, is
asking for sudden death or at least permanently reduced lung capacity for life.
HF doesn't just cause 'burns on the skin': inhaled it is extremely lethal...
And anyone here contemplating making F2 in a home setting requires sectioning to a very secure madhouse... |
Sorry but I simply do not agree. I think that HF is quite overrated in it's danger. Yes it is a severe skin contact hazard in high concentrations
because of the very high amount of fluoride you can absord from small amounts of liquid (very high molarity, fluoride precitipates calcium in the
blood, causing heart failure). The ability to precitipate calcium is the main reason for it's lethality (well yes, I guess the fluoride ion also has
some direct toxicity on lung tissue, but just look at the LC50 of HF, it's not that lethal, comparable to bromine and chlorine). To give you an idea:
1mL of conc. HF contains about 20 mmol of HF. 20mmol of HF is (following ideal gas law, in realilty it's probably less) about 500mL of PURE HF gas or
500 L of 1000 ppm. So while liquid, concentrated HF may be very dangerous, gaseous HF is much less so (example: to absorb the same amount of of
fluoride wich is present in 10mL of conc. HF you need to inhale 5000 L of 1000ppm HF). Just look at the toxicity data. Is about as toxic as chlorine
in gas form. Would you call someone completely mad if he heats chlorine water or bromine? Probably not. That's what I think is a bit weird: everyone
put's gaseous HF as EXTREMELY dangerous. Liquid HF (or conc. solutions) is extremely dangerous. And even then it's used massively in analytical labs
and in the pharmaceutical industry and there are not that many HF deaths reported.
Another comparison: Gaseous HCN is very hazourdous, but can in no way be compared with liquid HCN. Can you imagine how dangerous that is? Less than a
mL through the skin (readily absorbed, although I can imagine a lot evaporated before it can enter the skin) can be fatal, while you still have to
inhale quite some gas to die (300 ppm for 10 minutes).
Same for F2. While it may be a very severe reactive hazard (and HF also is hard to handle, it attacks glass) it's not like a nerve gas! Just because
it is very obscure and not common and has the reputation of being so reactive and rare doesn't mean it is increadibly toxic. Again it is indeed very
toxic, but there are much more toxic gasses like phosgene. So I don't see why you are so mad if you generate mg amounts of fluorine from some CoF3 or
similar....
The same with many superacids, while they may sound extremely corrosive and dangerous, many of these acids are not that dangerous at all.
Or can you provide some reference material with lethal (or severe injury) cases or animal studies with very low airbourne concentrations of HF or F2?
Then I could be proven wrong ofcourse.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is not too dangerous to handle solutions of hydrofluoric acid in water, if the proper saftey precautions are taken (splash-proof goggles,
water-proof apron, long rubber gloves, a preprepared solution of calcium acetate in water to apply to the skin in the case of accidental
skin-contact). However,be aware that large ammounts of HF solution splashed onto a large enough area of skin can result in death.
Boiling a solution of HF, or gaseous HF stored in a pressurized tank, is far more dangerous. While HF is a very poisonous gas, it is not exceptionally
so. There are many other gases or volatile liquids of comparable toxicity which are not uncommon in a professional laboratory. If a vile of
concentrated HF solution shatters on the ground, you are certainly not going to die, which is possible with some other extremely deadly reagents. In
summary, while HF may not be comparable to many other extremely deadly chemicals that may be found in a laboratory, it should still be treated as if
it were more dangerous than it actually is. Handling HF requires caution and is not something to take lightly.
Fluorine gas actually has about the same toxicity as hydrogen fluoride gas, since the main mechanism of toxicity for F2 is the immediate formation of
HF since it is so reactive.
[Edited on 7-5-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
plante1999
International Hazard
Posts: 1936
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as a hatter
|
|
from wiki:
Owing to its extreme reactivity, elemental fluorine was not isolated until many years after the characterization of fluorite. Progress in isolating
elemental fluorine was slowed because it could only be prepared electrolytically and even then under stringent conditions, since the gas attacks all
but certain exotic materials. In 1886, the isolation of elemental fluorine was reported by French chemist Henri Moissan after almost 74 years of
effort by other chemists.[54] The generation of elemental fluorine from hydrofluoric acid proved to be exceptionally dangerous, killing or blinding
several scientists who attempted early experiments on this halogen. These individuals came to be referred to as "fluorine martyrs".
I never asked for this.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jor and Anders:
Ok. Keep relativating the dangers of solutions of HF and gaseous HF, probably from the perspective of someone who’s never had to work with the damn
things!
Now everything is relative of course but with HF not that much. There’s a story even here on SM of a very experienced experimenter
who got serious HF burns from a small amount of inadvertently produced HF (an unexpected hydrolysis), in a professional setting. I think I can find it
back if you’re interested.
Wiki linked to a story (no longer available unfortunately) of an American refuse collector who dies from exposure to the gas. How? Some idiot had put
an EMPTY plastic bottle of HF solution with the common refuse, and when loaded into the truck, unbeknownst to our poor victim the
bottle was crushed and he got spritzed with the ‘content’ of the bottle. He died hours later in hospital, in an agonisingly painful death. Because
that’s the other thing: HF burns are very painful, don’t reveal themselves immediately and cause almost irreversible scar tissue.
Sure it’s possible to work safely with HF solutions, soluble fluorides and even anhydrous HF but it takes very strong precautions and clear
thinking. Someone I know who works with it on a daily basis professionally refuses to do so w/o full breathing apparatus.
Comparing the toxicity of HF with Cl2 or Br2 is also nonsense. I’ve inadvertently choked on Cl2 several times, having to leave my lab waiting for
the concentration to fall. With HF I wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale. Guess what the result would have been with F2…
|
|
|
Bot0nist
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Streching my cotyledons.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 |
Wiki linked to a story (no longer available unfortunately) of an American refuse collector who dies from exposure to the gas. How? Some idiot had put
an EMPTY plastic bottle of HF solution with the common refuse, and when loaded into the truck, unbeknownst to our poor victim the
bottle was crushed and he got spritzed with the ‘content’ of the bottle. He died hours later in hospital, in an agonisingly painful death. Because
that’s the other thing: HF burns are very painful, don’t reveal themselves immediately and cause almost irreversible scar tissue.
|
I immediately thought of that story when I read the last few posts in this thread. I too thought I had read it on wiki, but could no longer find it.
Google revealed that the man was Michael Hanley, age 51.
<a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-11-13/news/18014822_1_hydrofluoric-acid-jug-sanitation-workers">Here's a link to the
story.</a>
[Edited on 7-5-2011 by Bot0nist]
U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!
Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3247
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
I've checked, my local madhouse doesn't have adequate ventilation for the procedure.
At one time I very nearly put fourth the time and effort to make a fluorine cell:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2358
The procedure and construction was laid out in the Inorganic Synthesis series and claimed to be a safe / reliable procedure if standard precautions
were taken against working with the beast. My sticking point at the time wasn't the safety of it (though in retrospect, although I had most
everything worked out, it was still quite caviler) but obtaining the necessary quantity of potassium bifluoride and/or anhydrous hydrogen fluoride to
keep the cell running.
Was it safe for me to try this? No. Was it sane? Yes, but only because I thought I knew what I was getting into. Would I have survived? I
think I would have, but only because of my 10 years of experience as a backyard chemist and my 3 years of college chemistry to that point. Still, my
skill with gas handing at the time was abysmal and this is the Tyrannosaurus of the periodic table. Nevertheless, I've always wanted to make
perbromic acid, and aside from Xenon Difluoride this was the only way.
[Edited on 5/7/2011 by BromicAcid]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | | In high school we etched glass as Magpie described, in the hood. There were two wax bottles of (aqueous) HF in the stockroom as well. They were
slowly emptied by those of us who needed it for home use. IIRC we carried it home in little plastic bottles, most likely in our pocket.
|
Not that I would do that now, but most likely we didn't wear gloves. No one died. I've since used aqueous
HF to make HBF4. It's exciting but no big deal if done carefully with very good ventilation.
Fluorine is another story altogether, but it's unlikely that anyone with enough skill to actually make it couldn't handle it safety.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@BromicAcid:
You also wanted to make anhydrous HF. And then that thread went dead… 
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Jor and Anders:
Ok. Keep relativating the dangers of solutions of HF and gaseous HF, probably from the perspective of someone who’s never had to work with the damn
things!
Now everything is relative of course but with HF not that much. There’s a story even here on SM of a very experienced experimenter
who got serious HF burns from a small amount of inadvertently produced HF (an unexpected hydrolysis), in a professional setting. I think I can find it
back if you’re interested.
Wiki linked to a story (no longer available unfortunately) of an American refuse collector who dies from exposure to the gas. How? Some idiot had put
an EMPTY plastic bottle of HF solution with the common refuse, and when loaded into the truck, unbeknownst to our poor victim the
bottle was crushed and he got spritzed with the ‘content’ of the bottle. He died hours later in hospital, in an agonisingly painful death. Because
that’s the other thing: HF burns are very painful, don’t reveal themselves immediately and cause almost irreversible scar tissue.
Sure it’s possible to work safely with HF solutions, soluble fluorides and even anhydrous HF but it takes very strong precautions and clear
thinking. Someone I know who works with it on a daily basis professionally refuses to do so w/o full breathing apparatus.
Comparing the toxicity of HF with Cl2 or Br2 is also nonsense. I’ve inadvertently choked on Cl2 several times, having to leave my lab waiting for
the concentration to fall. With HF I wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale. Guess what the result would have been with F2…
|
I am not denying the dangers of liquid solutions of HF... I just told you that these are highly lethal even in small amounts because even small
amounts of liquid have very high amounts of fluoride and are easily absorbed. I am telling you that gaseous HF is simply not in the same category as
liquid HF. HF solutions are so dangerous because it simply is a poison wich is easily absorbed through the skin, most systemic poisons wich are easily
absorbed through the skin can be highly dangerous (phenol, dimethyl sulfate, etc.), because in these ways lethal amounts are much easier to absorb
quickly than by inhaling it.
Like I told you 1mL of 20 M HF is equivalent to 500mL of pure HF gas! Almost all deaths by HF are by skin contact with concentrated solutions.
It is much harder to absorb lethal amounts of HF by inhalation (unless you use poor ventilation). By inhalation, HF gas is not more hazardous than say
bromine.
''With HF I wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale. Guess what the result would have been with F2…''
This is nonsense. How do you know?
F2:
In the rats, the LC50 for exposures of 5, 15, 30, and
60 minutes were 1,088, 606, 420, and 287 mg/m3, respectively
HF:
The 15-minute LC50 values for hydrogen fluoride were
3,362 mg fluoride/m3 for guinea pigs and 2,090 mg fluoride/m3 for Wistar-derived
rats (Rosenholtz. et al. 1963). The 60-minute LC50 for hydrogen
fluoride in ICR-derived mice was 266 mg fluoride/m3 (Wohlslagel et al. 1976),
while in rats it has been reported as 1,084 mg fluoride/m3 for a Sprague-
Dawley-derived strain (Wohlslagel et al. 1976) and 1,016 mg fluoride/m3 for a
Wistar-derived strain (Rosenholtz et al. 1963).
Other investigatorss report even higher concentrations.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ATSDR-Fluoride.pdf
This means that Br2 is even more toxic than HF by inhalation. Just because skin contact with HF is so damn scary doesn't mean you can call someone a
complete madman because he plays with gaseous HF!  I see people distilling 10's of
mLs of Br2 and I never see people call them insane...
[Edited on 7-5-2011 by Jor]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Gaseous HF is so poisonous because undissociated HF molecules are readily soluble in fatty tissue. That's precisely why also hydrofluoric acid is a
contact poison: HF is a weak acid and in solution it's mostly undissociated HF molecules which are readily absorbed by living tissue and penetrate
skin quickly.
And yes, if HF(g) levels in a room would have reached the sort of levels of chlorine that make you choke and leave the room, lung tissue damage would
almost certainly kill you.
Comparing LC50 values of different toxic substances is often like comparing apples and oranges.
Bromine has one enormous advantage over HF: it’s very easy to condense, thus easy to contain. Ordinary distillation kits, operated by skilled
experimenters, make distilling ml quantities of bromine not at all difficult and not particularly dangerous.
You certainly don’t have to be a madman to manipulate the various forms of soluble fluorides and it all depends on concentrations and quantities.
But it remains one of the most dangerous substances you may need to use…
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No chemical is safe and every chemical is safe. The difference between "safe" and "unsafe" is what you do with it.
Without any knowledge of that you can't say whether someone's actions are foolish or not.
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
''Gaseous HF is so poisonous because undissociated HF molecules are readily soluble in fatty tissue.''
This says nothing on the toxicity of the gas. Yes this property makes the liquid so dangerous.
''And yes, if HF(g) levels in a room would have reached the sort of levels of chlorine that make you choke and leave the room, lung tissue damage
would almost certainly kill you. ''
No. How do you conclude this? I can also say without any reference if I inhale 1 mg of HCN I die, while it's simply not true. Very bad argumentation.
The cause of death by HF inhalation is pulmonary oedema just like other irritant gasses. The simple facts are that (not considering long term chronic
exposure the fluoride, only acute) even gases such as Cl2 are more fatal (in ppm levels in the air) than is HF. It's just because liquid HF or it's
solutions have gotten such a bad reputation (for a good reason) you just assume gaseous HF is instant death. LC50 is a good indication of toxicity
when comparing substances on lethality especially if they have the same mode of action (pulmonary oedema). The above quote is based on nothing (no
references, choking concentrations of halogens are about 20ppm, if HF is at this level you ssimply wont die or even get injured unless you're in it
for ages), just on your scare of liquid HF (wich IS extremely lethal).
Yes Br2 and Cl2 are a little easier to contain unlike HF wich attacks glass but the former 2 are quite more toxic too. But yes Cl2 and Br2 are so
'normal' as they are used to often to make them pretty harmless. I dare to bet that if 100 people here work with gaseous HF just like they work with
Cl2 (assuming they have resistant apparatus) not much worse will happen than when handling thing like Cl2.
When you look at HF it does actually have pretty high lethal doses ,more than 2 grams, wich is actually quite high for toxic substances. The reason it
is so dangerous that it is very easy to quickly absorb this dose via the skin.
Still ofcourse this material is very dangerous and utmost care must be taken when handling it, it's just that I hate it when people make simple
assumptions like: OMG HF gas, you must be mad. F2 is instant death, blabla. All these are based on nothing (have you even ever read toxicology
reports?) just the image you created yourself for the substance.
The same is true for HCN. Many people make it sound so increadibly lethal because of it's reputation and it's active use as a killing agent while
there are many many toxic gasses wich are quite commonly encountered wich are in the same category or are even more toxic.
''You certainly don’t have to be a madman to manipulate the various forms of soluble fluorides and it all depends on concentrations and quantities.
But it remains one of the most dangerous substances you may need to use…''
I agree, it is a very dangerous substance, as a gas or liquid.
Sorry for the offtopic discussion on the toxicology of these substances 
[Edited on 8-5-2011 by Jor]
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Jor and Anders:
Wiki linked to a story (no longer available unfortunately) of an American refuse collector who dies from exposure to the gas. How? Some idiot had put
an EMPTY plastic bottle of HF solution with the common refuse, and when loaded into the truck, unbeknownst to our poor victim the
bottle was crushed and he got spritzed with the ‘content’ of the bottle. He died hours later in hospital, in an agonisingly painful death. Because
that’s the other thing: HF burns are very painful, don’t reveal themselves immediately and cause almost irreversible scar tissue.
|
The Analogue Guy again. From my HD.
Trash Collector Dies After Inhaling Discarded Acid
By LAWRENCE VAN GELDER
New York Times 13xi96
[edited /djh/]
A New York City sanitation worker died yesterday after he inhaled the
fumes of a corrosive acid from a discarded container that burst under the
compacting blades of a garbage truck making routine collections in
Brooklyn.
Fire Department hazardous materials experts identified the substance
as hydrofIuoric acid, which is often used to etch glass. The acid
immediately burns the skin like fire and dehydrates it.
A second sanitation worker was injured in the incident, which brought
the Mayor and Sanitation Commissioner rushing to the bum unit of New
York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, touched off an investigation by the
police and sanitation departments and raised the possibility of homicide
charges against those responsible for leaving the acid to be picked up.
The Brooklyn District Attorney's office said: "The investigation is
continuing. Depending on what evidence is obtained in that investigation,
there could be homicide charges if there is an arrest.
Lucien Chalfen, a spokesman for the Department of Sanitation, said the
incident was avoidable. "The appropriate procedure in this case would
have been to notify the Department of Environmental Protection, and they
will then recommend the proper procedure for disposal," he said.
Normally, the Sanitation Department picks up only residential refuse and
waste from public garbage cans on the street, while private haulers
dispose of industrial garbage. Mr. Chalfen said there was no way of
knowing whether some industrial user had illegally placed the acid where
it could be picked up by sanitation workers.
The dead man was identified as Michael Hanly, 49, of Brooklyn, a
Sanitation Department worker for 22 years. His injured partner, who
suffered bums on the face hands when he came to Mr. Hanly's aid, was
identified as Thomas Giammarino of Staten Island, a member of the
department for years who was listed in stable condition the bum unit,
where he was held for further observation.
"People are unaware of what they dispose of and how they dispose of
things," he said "Frequently, sanitation workers are stuck by needles.
People many times dispose liquid thinners and paints and so forth. When
the cans break open, they spatter. this case, this is a very highly caustic
acid” Mr. Chalfen said yesterday's incident began around 9 A.M. when Mr.
Hanly ,Ad Mr. Giammarino were working their regular collection route.
Their truck was nearly loaded when one of .them picked up a parcel and
threw it in the back.
"One of the sanitation workers Was doing what they call cycling the
blades, to compact, and the other turned away to pick up other material,
and he heard like a pop, and this acid, which is hydrofluoric acid, just
sprayed out," he said.
Gerard Parkin, a professor of chemistry at Columbia University, said
hydrofluoric acid is usually stored in a plastic container. "I presume that's
what the pop was," he said. [Anyone remember when it was stored in
wax containers?]
He said the acid not only burns but ,also dehydrates the skin, adding
that even as little as a drop "generates a Very, very painful experience."
Mr. Hanly inhaled the acid's fumes, leading to his death in the
emergency room of New York Hospital, Mr. Chalfen said. Mr. Giammarno,
who was 10 or 15 feet away collecting other refuse when the acid
container burst, rushed to his aid and pulled his partner away from the
truck.
Later, the truck was impounded. Mr. Chalfen said a gallon container
believed to have held the acid was recovered.
After the two workers were injured, they were taken to the Manhattan
hospital in a Fire Department ambulance, while a department hazardous
materials team set about identifying the volatile material.
Eventually, the Fire Department ordered and took part in the
detoxification of the emergency room, hospital personnel, its own
personnel and ambulance and members of a Bensonhurst ambulance
crew that initially responded.
For a time, the hospital's emergency entrance was closed off for
decontamination. No injuries were reported.
Mr. Chalfen, the Sanitation Department spokesman, said, "Basically this
kind of thoughtless act has created a tremendous amount of pain both for
the families involved as well as for each member of the department."
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
HF Burns from Industrial Chemical News
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL NEWS
July 1983
by David E. Beesinger, M.D., Director, Hermann Hospital Burn
Unit Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Texas
Medical School, Houston, and Harold R. Mancusi-Ungaro, Jr.
M.D,, Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Texas
Medical School.
As the need for industrial solvents ,an cleaning agents grows,
the incidence of chemical injuries escalates. It is estimated that
each year more than 60,000 patients in the United States
require professional care for injuries resulting from exposure to
chemicals. Hospitalization, skin grafting, and prolonged reha-
bilitation time may be needed to deal with the depth and extent
of these injuries. Loss of life or limbs and severe cosmetic
defects may even result.
Hydrofluoric acid is a particularly treacherous example of
such chemicals, causing extensive injury when skin contact
occurs. This acid is frequently used industrially for the etching
of glass and silicon chips, cleaning of machinery, and octane
production. Here's a case history for a typical injury and course
of treatment for exposure to hydrofluoric acid.
Case in point
A 59-year-old male was admitted to Hermann Hospital Burn
Unit, Houston, Texas, after having spilled approximately "one
cup" of hydrofluoric acid onto his left thigh. The worker was an
employee of a petrochemical plant in south Texas where the
acid was used for octane production.
The wound was irrigated at the plant with a solution of sodium
bicarbonate. The patient was then taken to a local hospital.
At that facility, the wound was further irrigated with water and
Zephiran solution, and dressed with an ointment containing
magnesium sulfate and magnesium hydroxide. Calcium
gluconate was injected into the fatty tissue beneath the wound.
The patient was then transferred to the Hermann Hospital Burn
Unit.
On arrival at the burn center, the wound of the left thigh was
initially estimated to be of second-degree depth. More calcium
gluconate was injected beneath the wound, copious irrigation
was performed, and the wound was covered with Silvadene
(silver sulfadliazine), an antimicrobial cream. to minimize
bacterial contamination. Because of the extreme pain caused
by the injury, narcotics were administered, and the patient was
observed.
Approximately 24 hours after injury, the wound was again
inspected and found to be full-thickness or third-degree in
depth. The patient was taken to the operating room where
upon incision, the injury was seen to extend not only through
all layers of the skin, but also deep into the fat beneath the
skin. Dead tissue was surgically removed all the way down to
the muscle of the thigh. Skin was then taken from the
opposite thigh and placed on the burn wound as a skin graft.
The patient's hospital course was then uneventful. He was
ready for discharge two weeks after his initial injury. The area
of skin grafting had matured to the point that the patient was
able to return to work two months after the injury.
Injury class
Chemical injuries are not burns per se. They do not destroy
tissue by heat contact, but instead cause injury by other
methods of tissue protein destruction. According to their
actions, chemicals capable of skin injury are classified as 1)
oxidizing agents, 2) corrosives, 3) salt formers or cation
binders, 4) desiccants or drying agents and 5) vesicans or
blister producers.
Hydrofluoric acid belongs to category three, acting to bind
calcium in whatever tissues are brought in contact with the
chemical. Since calcium is imperative for cellular life, its binding
or precipitation brings about cell death in a short period of time.
If the wound covers a large percentage of body surface area,
excessive amounts 4 calcium may be inactivated so that
inadequate amounts of the cation are available for normal body
organ functions. Specifically, heart function is diminished and
rhythm of the heart beat becomes abnormal.
Clincally, the action of hydrofluoric acid on skin is manifest in
several significant ways. The destruction of tissue is very rapid,
dictating that the wound be irrigated as soon as possible with
large volumes of water or a dilute solution of sodium
bicarbonate.
In addition, the appearance of the depth of the wound may be
deceiving, as demonstrated in `ihe case just presented.
Because of progressive tissue destruction, wounds that un!ially
appear to be superficial usually are much deeper after 24 to 48
hours. This progressive death of cells again dictates early
removal of the acid by irrigation and provides rationale for the
recommended sub cutaneous injection of calcium gluconate.
The substance binds the fluoride ion as calcium fluoride,
preventing tissue binding of calcium, and thus decreasing
cellular destruction and greatly decreasing pain.
Since hydrogen fluoride injuries are generally full-thickness or
third degree burns, the wound frequently requires surgical
therapy. If damage extends to muscle, tendons, and bone,
amputations of upper or lower extremities may be required. In
other cases, skin and subcutaneous tissue must be removed
and the resultant area covered with skin grafts.
If you are exposed to hydrofluoric acid in your work, you
should be aware of its capacity for injury, and take all
precautions to prevent accidents. You should also be well
versed in appropriate first aid, and be prepared to seek early
professional treatment.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jor, we’ll just have to aree to disagree. Your argumentation convinces me as much as mine does you. Pot meet Kettle.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
