[Histonet] Off topic_recycling xylene
koellingr <@t> comcast.net
koellingr <@t> comcast.net
Sun Mar 18 10:06:05 CDT 2007
Rene and Bryan,
Thanks for your replies. I can accept explanations of responses that tend toward superlatives and enthusiastic testimonials. Again I agree 100% with reasoning of disposal costs, cost-effectiveness, utility, efficiency and recovery of costs. It is just that a brief search back in the HistoNet archives produces multiple pages, from many users since 1999. The writings include "recycled xylene tends to be purer (than the original)", "recycled xylene is purer than new", "xylene becomes more pure over time the more it is recycled", "more pure with more recycling","had problem with processes after using recycled xylene and it turned out that the xylene was coming out too pure","I do know that xylenes become more pure with recycling". And so on. But I see almost nothing questioning this. Recycling xylene in histology labs is absolutely great. It is just that this all sounds much more than histologic utility or enthusiasm and is written as absolute scientific fact. Am just curious u
pon what scientific basis the statements are made.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Rene J Buesa <rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com>
Although you wrote that you do not want to start a debate, it is very likely that you will because some things are very "close to the heart" of some histotechs and, as such, they are more "felt" that "factual".
I absolutely agree with you that a simple recycler will never get to "pure" xylene, specially if all recyclers star with xylene mixed with impurities.
Even the smell (although one should not smell it!!!) if different and you could even tell by it which is "new from the manufacturer" and which is recycled.
For all practical purposes (antemedium in tissue processing, dewaxing during staining, and even for film coverslipping) recycled xylene is as useful as "new from the manufacturer" xylene, but it not "better" or "purer", those are just enthusiastic testimonies of those recycling that are so happy doing it that would like everybody to do it.
On the other hand, those who recommend to use only "pure from the manufacturer" xylene for certain histology procedures say so because they have some interest in selling the "real thing" and don't want to see their business profits reduced considerable by those who recycle used xylene.
Between 1 June/1993 and 31 Dec/2001 I recycled a total of 5,142 gals (at an average of 2.2 gals/day) and I recovered 4,053 gals of xylene, 852 gals of liquid waste and 237 gals of semi-solid waste.
The value of the recovered xylene was $26,061 and my total savings were $22,099 My original investment on my very simple B/R recycler was repaid several times over, but I never claimed that the xylene I recycled was "better" than the original one, as a matter of fact, it was as efficient to use, but "somewhat different".
koellingr <@t> comcast.net wrote:
This post is an inquiry regarding recycling of xylene in histology labs but is kind of off topic so please simply delete at will. I like to use the HistoNet for scientific inquiry and not debate.
I fully support the concept of recycling of xylene in histology labs. But for several years, I've read on the HistoNet many statements from users of various recycling instruments and am curious about their declarative statements. I've read that with (name the brand) recycler, the xylene becomes "purer". The xylene is "better". All the impurities are completely removed. You get purer xylene than you started with. The xylene is absolutely pure. All contaminants, even those that came in the bottle, are removed in recycling. A whole set of declarations that I'm finding hard to accept at face value.
When we went through a large study, trying to figure out in a former lab if recycled xylene was good for us, we collected and had analyzed sample after sample from bottles, before recycling after recycling and after multiple recyclings. Had them analyzed by gas chromatography at a good reference lab. Although the recycling worked, we saw little in the change of the readout from pure to recycled. A bit of a change but not much to affect anything. So we recycled and were happy.
It is my understanding that tens of millions of pounds of xylenes are produced every year. Histologic grade mixed xylenes (o-, m- and p-) come with a good percentage of ethyl benzene and a minor percentage of various other hydrocarbon contaminants. To remove ethylbenzene and these other contaminants to obtain pure xylenes (needed for upstream processes) requires 100 million dollar chemical plants, hydrogen atmospheres, catalysts and 200 foot high fractionation columns.
Do the people who are saying that their lab recyclers are removing these contaminants, follow this xylene stream with critical GC testing? If the xylenes are "better" or "purer" why are there all the warnings to not use recycled xylene for certain procedures? It is "too" pure? Is there such a thing? If this is so easy to accomplish it seems that one could buy a (your brand) recycler, find the cheapest mixed histologic grade xylene you can find, don't use it for histology but simply recycle it, bottle it in 25 or 100 ml bottles as ultrapure for HPLC or gold standard mass spec analysis for 100 times the cost of the original impure xylene and retire rich.
I agree xylene recyling is cost-efficient, morally acceptable, environmentally friendly, useful, efficient and everything else. I'm having a hard time accepting that these common lab recyclers do so easily what it takes massive chemical plants and incredible organic chemistry know how to do.
If anyone has read this far, and you do recycling of xylene, I'd like to hear about your thoughts on the subject.
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
More information about the Histonet