As the claims of 2.22 being banned have not been substantiated, then I will have to edit or delete certain comments, as I don't want the Forum to be seen as a disseminator of misinformation.

Comment deleted.

I was discussing this thread with our old friend Hugh Scott, and like me, he used 2.22 for years without the use of gloves, bare hands. I didn't even open the window. The only issues I ever had were with Solvon. Hugh also said that he continued to buy it until the end; the inventor died and that was the end of Kanus Chemicals.

These type of substances are not commercially available to buy anymore now Robert, even if someone had the notion to concoct such a recipe.

I used to use it myself Robert and was very pleased with results back then from using it, but quite besides my own health, I wouldn't feel it was anything like safe to use on the films I own today beyond around 1988.

If a relatively odour less safe solution is to hand, I personally see no point in looking any further than that especially considering the manner in which film just glides through the gate once treated with the modern alternative.

I was going to post why comment deleated but I see why by Roberts comments about 222

Deleted because of unsubstantiated comments about 2.22 being banned. The inventor, who you bought it from, died, and it became unavailable. If anyone has verifiable proof that it was banned by a government agency, the only people who have the authority to do that, then I would be happy to see it. Just repeating some statement made by a person, who got this from someone else, who got this third hand, holds no value. It will be interesting to see what David's chemist comes up with.

Yes it will Robert regarding the FilmGuard formula.
I think it's patented so it wouldn't be wise to disclose such information however it would be nice to secure our own minds what these things are made up of, just as with any other household product you may buy.

As for solvents now, they are pretty much unavailable to purchase commercially as they once were and certainly in industry, each year that passes, fewer and fewer substances that are extremely useful are no longer allowed to be held on site due to increased regulations.
It can be very frustrating at times as often, the alternatives just don't do the same job as their predecessors.

Solvon had the ingredients on the tin. Just like 2.22 it evaporated almost as quickly as the cloth was wet.

Found this information on a site called 16mmfilminfo.com :

How often? Most importantly, don't over clean! Many collectors become positively paranoid about cleaning their films. Their compulsive efforts are better directed to keeping the projector and it's film gate clean. Barring unusual circumstances, once a film is cleaned it need not be cleaned for several years. Over cleaning is trauma to film. Too much film chemical will soften tape splices and discolor plastic reels. Use chemical sparingly!

What chemical?

There are currently three products on the market which collectors will find mentioned on the Internet. FilmGuard, VitaFilm and FilmRenew.

FilmGuard: This product is not recommended. It was primarilly designed with the goal of having a treated film run continuously in commercial theaters where dirt is common and scratches typically occur. It is little more than an oily lubricant. Its ability to clean film is dependant upon an accompaning roller and dry web cloth accessory attached to the projector. Whether this product is safe for films over the long term is not known and uncertain. It's a chemical intended for theatrical release prints which run continuously for 4 to 8 weeks and then routinely destroyed. Film Collectors need a product for prints that are infrequently viewed and need storage protection over the long term. FilmGuard was not designed for those purposes.

And this from Filmshooting.com; looks like the post was written by a dealer.

Yes that "not recommended" piece is now infamous Robert.

It was explained over on the other forum some time ago now, that it was posted by a rival of Brad's business ventures to try to discredit his product and or, his reputation.

Brad himself at the time proved there was absolutely no truth in any of it and the product was widely used by the cinema's when they used film projectors.

Brad admits now that since the demise of real cinema, this business represents less than 1% of his annual overall business turnover.
So these days he keeps the product runs going just really for film enthusiasts as opposed to any real business model aimed purely for profitability reasons.

He also claims that the reason for the recent price hikes are mainly due now to the small scale production runs of the product and some increases in some of the chemicals used etc while supplied to him only in relative small quantities.

The product has been tested on film since it's initial development some twenty something years ago now and the products tested then still look and sound as good as they did all of those years ago in accordance to Brad's own words.

I doubt he would publicly declare such a claim if it could easily be refuted.

Some of my own prints from owners past were first treated with FilmGuard in the 90's and all of these have stood the test of time perfectly well.

The original Die Hard film I watched only last night was treated with this chemical from new and it still looked and sounded just the same as when I first got it more or less as I began collecting again.

It was Paul Foster who initially put me onto this stuff when I initially returned to the hobby some years back now.
He claimed it was the best he'd ever used.
I'd say he was correct.

I don't have shares in FilmGuard by the way, just an avid interest in keeping it available for as long as possible in our country.
I don't know what else I'd turn to if it was no longer available as many of the others I've tried have some major disadvantages, especially for my preferred later produced films.