Dealing with Glass Advocates

[rogue]

Hey Cana,
Did you see that that reference was at ph 7?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb04096.x/abstract
I'm a science geek. I wonder if it makes a difference at either end of the ph spectrum. Interesting science though!

 

[CanaDawn]

It does (because then you have the effect of an acid or alkali)....but that reference is to the fact that glass dissolves in neutral pH water specifically (it is known that glass in acid or alkali is affected) so the experiment is to show that water itself dissolves glass (which can further be shown by testing with phenolphthalein))

My point (with tongue-in-cheek, despite the science being valid) is that taking a no-exceptions stand on a topic often doesn't take into account the details.

EG is correct in that not using glass removes the risks associated with using glass. As he points out, though, the risk is largely for use of the _wrong_ glass. It's easier to avoid all risk of glass (including that of thermal shock and physical damage) by using plastic (although then we get into which kind of plastic...)

I'm not upset at all, haven't been throughout the thread. Two question marks and a single exclamation point don't really mean quite that much. However, I grow weary. I value what I learn on this forum, despite thinkativeone's assumption I would have no use for what I would read (ouch) :sad:.

The advice seems pretty much the same throughout the thread - Susie said it succinctly "And as for how you deal with those people, you should just walk away. If you have informed them of what the safe containers should be made of, any problems they have are their problems."

You (thinkativeone) apparently remain unsatisfied that that is the most likely way to handle people who use glassware, so I hope the remainder of this thread brings up some alternative you find acceptable.

Over 'n' out.

 

[LunaSkye]

I've read some of the posts on this thread and have taken some notes, but I really would like to know where pyrex falls in terms of laboratory-grade glass? Is it just really good in the case you want to use it for double-boiling oils & butters or should I tank the idea? I have read quite a few post on how pyrex glass will break and I like being safe than sorry despite not having glass break with the first 10-15 batches I made.

Additionally, for anyone who used pyrex, did you dump all the lye at once or did you add it slowly? I used to add it slowly to the liquid when using the pyrex and I remember seeing videos of people dumping the lye in plastic containers.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

I add my lye slowly regardless.

As for pyrex, if it is the old style it is the better quality. Lab grade? Not sure if it is quite there, but it can take a pounding. The new stuff seems to be about as useful for we do as a chocolate teapot.

 

[thinkativeone]

My point (with tongue-in-cheek, despite the science being valid) is that taking a no-exceptions stand on a topic often doesn't take into account the details.

The point of all this wasn't about me taking a no-exceptions stand. The core is about how to mitigate damage and providing people a reasonable option - high-quality chem grade glass is expensive and more difficult to come by; and there isn't enough information available to us as to when it becomes unsafe to use with repeated mixings of lye solution over time. As EG said, the real question is "why should I use glass?" When PP 5 plastic (or HDPE for storage only) is available, as well as such inexpensive Stainless Steel as Susie found, chem-grade glass is not practical, and we don't know when old-fashioned Pyrex will reach its breaking point (literally).

EG is correct in that not using glass removes the risks associated with using glass. As he points out, though, the risk is largely for use of the _wrong_ glass. It's easier to avoid all risk of glass (including that of thermal shock and physical damage) by using plastic (although then we get into which kind of plastic...)

This has been pretty well-noted - part of the thread's intent was to find specifics on laboratory-grade and very old glassware becoming unsafe and how that comes about.

I'm not upset at all, haven't been throughout the thread. Two question marks and a single exclamation point don't really mean quite that much. However, I grow weary. I value what I learn on this forum, despite thinkativeone's assumption I would have no use for what I would read (ouch) :sad:.

It was more than a single exclamation point that was telling, all the quotations put together emphasize some sort of belief that I'm out to get people. I'm glad you're not upset. Ouch back at ya. This is NOT what I said or meant at all, and it's actually really clear there. I used the word "probably" not "definitely", referring to your statement where you insisted what I said was not being scientifically valid proof as well as made it out as though I could be inadequate enough not to know the difference between scientific proof, hearsay, or what references mean (which, again I never said it was scientific proof, I was deferring to archives and explaining what I meant by climate, that's all). I said what I did because in that context you stated that these discussions weren't up to your standards (with no offense to posters here). I responded putting emphasis that there are chemists in the archives and plentiful legitimate scientific proof also, and because I thought you might choose to look them up anyway I gave you the information on how to. That is hardly an assumption as to you or your character.

Maybe this was just a lively debate for you, I could be wrong - but from what I'm sensing here I'd like to (please) peacefully cease the conversation between us. I'm not making assumptions about you, I've provided you with avenues to find this information - would have even been happy to link to it for you, but instead you chose to go after the validity of it without wanting to research how valid it is first. If you do your own research (by searching the way I mentioned before) you will find scientific proof without any prompting or coercion from me. If you just disagree regardless, okay. All I want to do right now is just agree to disagree with you and move along, because I'm exceedingly worn out from this. I'm not upset either, but interactions like these take a toll on me. Not my idea of fun and life's too short with too much to do!

The advice seems pretty much the same throughout the thread - Susie said it succinctly "And as for how you deal with those people, you should just walk away. If you have informed them of what the safe containers should be made of, any problems they have are their problems."

Okay, so currently one other person besides you has this view. I respect both your views, but I think the mark has been missed here. I don't want to influence those people when it can't be done. As I've said many, many times, I want to find a way to best help out those they are passing misinformation along to. If you don't think it's possible to do that either, well, okay. I edited the first original post to emphasize this for clarity to hopefully avoid any future confusion.

You (thinkativeone) apparently remain unsatisfied that that is the most likely way to handle people who use glassware, so I hope the remainder of this thread brings up some alternative you find acceptable.

Over 'n' out.

I wouldn't say unsatisfied. I've gleaned a lot from this conversation, even if I don't think it applies to the situation or grasped what I was talking about. I am grateful for different mindsets. Wisdom in a multitude of counselors, and all that jazz. You're making a lot of assumptions about me (without knowing me) on your own though... I'm quite sorry we can't seem to communicate effectively with one another, I wish that weren't the case. I think it might be best if we stop trying since you don't know at all what I mean in any of my posts and keep taking comments and words the wrong way (maliciousness where there wasn't any) - and I'm sure I could just be an impossible, all-knowing busybody and a stubborn twit on your end (there's my assumption!). It seems like we'd both be happier if we just shake hands and part amicably. I agree to disagree. I'm game for peaceable relations. There is nothing mean-spirited meant in saying any of what I've written you, so if it looks that way please know it isn't. I am resigned to think some people just can't properly relate with one another.

:wave: (Closest thing I could find to a handshake.) Have a great day!

 

[thinkativeone]

In answer to the OPs question - I would say that in some instances it is safe enough, but unless you are 100% sure that you have the right glass type and know how to check for issues with the container, the risk of failure is real. Heck, we can use an old Pot Noodle pot for crying out loud, so why are people using lovely Pyrex (the good version, not the melting exploding new stuff) for lye?

Turn it round - ask not "why shouldn't I use glass?" but ask "why should I use glass?". When you put it that way, there aren't many good reasons to use glass over anything else, taking in to account the possible risks.

Thanks for posting. You really shed a very clear light on what I was asking and where I came from. I appreciate your answer.

Does anyone on here know how to check for/what equipment is needed to check for issues developing with the chem-grade/vintage Pyrex glass? If I am told how to appropriately identify them and they want to use glass, I can happily have one more safety tidbit to pass along. :-D I haven't tried since I no longer use it.

P.S. Your other post about "as useful as a chocolate teapot" caught my eye. Is this an Austrian idiom? Or an Efficacious Gentleman original?

 

[IrishLass]

I saw my name mentioned in one of the earlier posts, so I thought I'd quickly pop in and offer my 2 cents.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for what it's worth (because thinkativeone was wondering about this in an earlier post), my stance hasn't changed. I still don't use glass to mix my lye solution. And I still don't think its all that good of an idea to recommend others to do so, especially when there are other less riskier (and cheaper) alternatives. I really like what The Efficacious Gentleman said, "Turn it round - ask not "why shouldn't I use glass?" but ask "why should I use glass?". When you put it that way, there aren't many good reasons to use glass over anything else, taking in to account the possible risks." I couldn't agree more.

I'm not a chemist, nor do I play one on TV (although I often joyfully play around with chemistry in my kitchen ), but I just wanted to say that one of the main reasons I take the above stance is because of the advice graciously given by a handful of members I've come to respect on another board who happen to be chemists, lab workers, and/or scientists that do regular lab work. The consensus among them, as far as mixing lye solution in glass is concerned, even lab glass- is that it's too risky compared to the other alternatives out there. For what its worth, as far as soap-making and lab-ware go, they really seem to like Nalgene instead.

But, not only is glass (even borosilicate glass) vulnerable to alkaline solutions* please see note below, but it is also vulnerable to being bumped or banged. It may not break or shatter the first time you mix lye in it or after the first time you bump it, and maybe not even the 20th or 50th time, but each time it's exposed to such attacks it makes it even more vulnerable. I always say that mixing lye solution in glass is like playing Russian Roulette- you just never know when that bullet will fire, or when the glass has had one attack too many. Why risk it at all if you don't have to, you know? Even the venerable Dr. Kevin Dunn recommends mixing and storing lye solution in polypropylene #5 instead of Pyrex.

*Note: Borosilicate is very strong, durable stuff, but it has it's kryptonite, so to speak. According to the borosilicate tech data sheet here: https://www.scilabware.com/en/glass-types-properties
"Only hydrofluoric acid, hot concentrated phosphoric acid and strong
alkaline solutions cause appreciable corrosion of the glass." [emphasis mine]


and here: http://www.camglassblowing.co.uk/glass-properties/
"Resistance to alkaline solutions is moderate and strong alkaline solutions cause rapid corrosion of the glass, as does Hydrofluoric acid and hot concentrated Phosphoric acid." [emphasis mine]

And here's a link to an excellent article regarding the different mechanisms that corrode/attack glass that that I originally found on NACE's site (NACE= National Association of Corrosion Engineers), but can now be found here:

http://corrosion-doctors.org/Household/Glass.htm


Anyway, all of the above accumulative info makes up the backbone of why I choose to steer clear of mixing my lye solution in any kind of glass, and why I don't recommend it to others when asked. Others may weigh the risk/benefit differently, but to me it's just not worth the risk.


IrishLass

 

[rogue]

I totally forgot about Nalgene bottles. You can get 1-32oz sizes for under $5 at a place called the container store. Brain whiff. I know where I'm going this weekend. Thanks for triggering that sleeping neuron thru this very long topic

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

......................S. Your other post about "as useful as a chocolate teapot" caught my eye. Is this an Austrian idiom? Or an Efficacious Gentleman original?

It is an English idiom, one that I like to hold on to

 

[onesickfreak]

so does this mean i should stop doing HP in my second hand crockpot? cause i have that kind of luck...

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

The Crock has a ceramic pot inside? No cracks, dents, chips or other nasties? You don't have raw lye solution in the pot on its own? If all that checks out, then there is no reason not to use the crock pot for HP - the issue with mixing lye in a glass pot is that the crystals cut the glass as it is mixed, before they can fully dissolve. Over time, this can cut the glass enough that the glass fails and lye solution spills out.

 

[onesickfreak]

ok, good stuff... its in good shape, with size and quality i was surprised to find it for so cheap... i did use a mason jar my first two goes (my first fail and first success), but after reading some of the safety guidelines i got a plastic measuring cup from the dollar store...

on a side note, i tossed that jar in the freezer the other day, shattered as soon as i took it out...

 

[CanaDawn]

The Crock has a ceramic pot inside? No cracks, dents, chips or other nasties? You don't have raw lye solution in the pot on its own? If all that checks out, then there is no reason not to use the crock pot for HP - the issue with mixing lye in a glass pot is that the crystals cut the glass as it is mixed, before they can fully dissolve. Over time, this can cut the glass enough that the glass fails and lye solution spills out.

No. The issue with using lye in glass is that the lye chemically alters the structure of the glass. The lye in solution will etch the glass chemically, not physically. This comment utterly surprises me given that we're discussing etching as if we know what it is we are discussing.

Glass reacts chemically with sodium hydroxide to form water-soluble silicates. Lye does not abrade glass, it very slowly dissolves it. Etching (in the case of glass and lye) is the removal of a tiny (micrometer depth) surface of the glass due to chemical interaction with the solution inside. It "clouds" the glass eventually, and over a long time can cause glass to fail. The chemical nature of the reaction is different in borosilicate vs soda-lime glass, and borosilicate glass is much more resistant. Pyroceram is another type of glass that is even MORE lye resistant than B-S glass (It is Class 1 ISO 695). It is available for household glass.

Thermal shock is different. It is sudden, and is due to the inability of glass to stretch, so when one side of glass is much hotter than the other, the change of temperature across the thickness of the glass causes it to break suddenly. It is worse in glass with sharp bends, due to the corner further preventing the glass from accomodating the temperature differential. That is why labware used for heating has rounded bends, vs right angles.

Labware, btw, is not impossibly expensive. A 1L beaker runs about $11.

Glazed stoneware, such as the inside of most slowcookers, has a different alkali resistance than B-S or S-L glass. I am trying to track it down, but manufacturers arent all that forthcoming.

I thought I was done on this thread, but the absurdity (sorry, but truly that statement about crystals cutting the glass is absurd) made me feel it was necessary to try again.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

............I thought I was done on this thread, but the absurdity (sorry, but truly that statement about crystals cutting the glass is absurd) made me feel it was necessary to try again.

Okay, well I am sorry that I was not correct in how the glass is etched. In my mind, your reaction was way over the top, hence the public post on that. At the end of the day, the glass is etched by the lye solution - a gentle pick-up on the actual reason why would have been more than sufficiant I feel.

I could have sworn that I had seen pictures posted somewhere of glass with physical scratches from lye solution being stirred in it - but I must have been mistaken.

Regardless of all other points in your post - cost of lab glass, resistance rates of types of glass and so on - the glass is still etched by lye which can (and has) cause it to fail. If I am wrong on that point, please let me know. If I am right on that point, then I think that we can agree that saying "using glass to mix lye is safe" is not a true statement, unless we change the statement to include the myriad of caveats required.

 

[OliveOil2]

Regardless of argument, heated or not I totally agree with TEG why use glass (of any kind)? When I first started soaping I was given a set of laboratory beakers, never used for lye, did use to hold FO and EO. Today I have one or two beakers left, I've broken the rest of the set. I use a stainless steel pitcher that I got on Amazon, 60oz. probably larger than I need, but that works for me.Yesterday at the Dollar store I saw a quart plastic #5 in the triangle pitcher made in the USA. So if someone is starting out on a tight budget there are plenty of options.

 

[CanaDawn]

Glass is etched (dissolved very slowly, not scraped away) by lye, chemically. Etching causes opacity over time. Different glass dissolves at different rates. Some glass is reasonably resistant to alkali and dissolves much more slowly (borosilicate glass). Other glass dissolves more quickly, because "glass" is actually a term used to describe quite a large range of chemical compositions.

If you want to avoid any risk at all associated with the microscopic removal of layers of glass over time, or of dropping your glassware - use alternate materials.

Sorry, I was just utterly shocked that after all this discussion, it turns out that your understanding of what is happening when lye and glass meet is so entirely inaccurate.

I'm more and more convinced thermal shock is the bigger reason for glass trouble in soaping.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

Alas I was trying to post from my mobile device yesterday but had troubles.

I still feel that the precise "how" is not the important point. I don't know precisely what meth does to the body, but I know it's not a good idea to smoke it. If I was to suggest to someone not to smoke it, but then I couldn't explain exactly why it is bad, would that be a shocking thing? Does one need to know the precise reactions involved to be in a position to say "It's not a good idea"?

This comment utterly surprises me given that we're discussing etching as if we know what it is we are discussing.

Sorry, I was just utterly shocked that after all this discussion, it turns out that your understanding of what is happening when lye and glass meet is so entirely inaccurate.

We (or I) know that the glass is made weaker because of the lye. I am mortified that I was incorrect in my thinking on how it happens (sarcasm). But also bear in mind that at no point in the thread was the "how" discussed, until my shameful(sarcasm) error. I would not be overly amazed to find out that a number of people who know that glass is not good to use for lye but don't know why.

 

[Shalisk]

Yup.

 

[CanaDawn]

I don't suppose anyone cares anymore, and I'm only digging a deeper hole for myself, but I think it does matter....how do you all react when someone tells you their soap isn't made with lye? Does it matter to anyone? oh yes, it does. And there are whole threads discussing how foolish people are who can't or won't understand the chemistry there.

If you believe that stirring lye crystals causes glass scratching, it is easy to assume that lye in solution won't damage glass (which is what you assumed when you said it was fine to use a slow cooker with a ceramic liner). Did you never wonder why salt doesn't scratch glass and cause damage? Or sugar? Or wonder where the alkali goes once the lye is dissolved? Or why raw soap is too alkali to be handled, but somehow the glass wouldn't notice anymore? Do you possess and use any glass dinnerware (eek, it BREAKS!!) or glasses with etched designs (good lord, they are etched deeply and visibly! But somehow the invisible etch of lye after one use renders a vessel unuseable?)?

In truth, it is possible that the ceramic liner is ALSO susceptible to lye etching over time, depending on the type of glaze used on it. It's more resistant, but so is B-S glass, and that detail was happily chucked out, so I imagine no one will consider this one.

I don't deny that glass etches. I posted several links, including a graph showing that over the course of 3 _hours_ of _boiling_, an alkali solution removes amounts of glass measured at less than 2 micrometers.

I realise you don't care at all about how utterly incorrect your understanding of alkali and glass is/was. That's fine. You're being sarcastic but that doesn't change the facts at all. I'm actually taken aback, but then I suppose I have forgotten how groups of people on the internet act.

In other threads, precise chemical explanations are appreciated as further detail and learning. Somehow, the "anti-glass" is a line that apparently must not be crossed, regardless of the precise chemistry involved. Since no one seems interested in the "how", I guess it is easier just to state a hard and fast rule.

I understand that no matter what the details are, you wish not to use or advocate the use of glassware in soaping (unless it is a slowcooker, or, apparently unless the lye is mixed with something, in which case you wish to ignore the alkali effect because it won't fit your system of thought about etching....) I think if one wants to rally so very hard against glass, one should take on some responsibility for understanding WHY and HOW the risk is incurred, instead of spouting nonsense, and then mocking the facts. *shrug*

I've already stated that if one feels the risk of using glassware exceeds one's comfort there are options that can be used. I don't care anymore given the nasty reaction to what initially was me trying to offer information. Since the thread has now degraded further to stupid memes, I don't see any point in further discussion.

I still feel that the precise "how" is not the important point. I don't know precisely what meth does to the body, but I know it's not a good idea to smoke it. If I was to suggest to someone not to smoke it, but then I couldn't explain exactly why it is bad, would that be a shocking thing? Does one need to know the precise reactions involved to be in a position to say "It's not a good idea"?

No, but if you then go on to say that meth is bad because it is made by aliens, prepare to be laughed at. You were that far wrong.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

The accurate information was actually very much appreciated - far from sarcasm there, as I love learning new things, don't like being wrong and am more than happy to be corrected.

The method of doing it was, in my opinion (and as it was directed at me, my opinion on the method is rather valid) utterly and without question over the top and aimed to be degrading and hurtful.

One of the benefits of a forum is that one can see a post, have an immediate reaction and THEN post something, once the knee-jerk has finished and a structured clarification can be given. But then I suppose I have forgotten how groups of people on the internet act.