Will it contain dihydrogen monoxide? After all, DHMO has been found in cancerous tumors.
As for the OP, I’m guessing that it contains some excipient ingredient that makes it “safer.” It’s already “dilyte” (15%) at full strength, and needs to be further diluted before use.
And it’s extremely dangerous to breathe yet gentle to the skin(at normal pressures).
I think this is the patent in question (by Fluid Energy Group Ltd.):
The invention claimed is:
- An aqueous modified acid composition comprising:
Hydrochloric acid and monoethanolamine in a molar ratio ranging from 3:1 to not more than 15:1 where the pH of the composition is less than 1 and the composition is stable at temperatures of up to 190° C.
Most preferred is monoethanolamine. When added to hydrochloric acid a Lewis acid/base adduct is formed where the primary amino group acts as a Lewis base and the proton of the HCl as Lewis acid. The formed adduct greatly reduces the hazardous effects of the hydrochloric acid on its own, such as the fuming/vapor pressure effect, the hygroscopicity, and the highly corrosive nature. Various organic acids are also contemplated according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
Just one more bit of proof it’s a scam. Not that there’s any question.
I’m not sure how that follows. Fluid Energy Group seems to be a legitimate manufacturer of reduced-hazard fracking chemicals. And “Safe-HCL” is just a rebranded version of one of these formulations, intended for the beachcombing market. Sure, they aren’t being very transparent about it, but it seems to more or less hold up to the claims: less corrosive than straight HCl while retaining most of the qualities.
Many of the chemicals at the hardware store–drain cleaner, stump remover, etc.–are just industrial chemicals with extra branding. It gets silly at times, and you end up paying 10x as much for the same product, but it’s not really a scam.
Interesting. I had earlier found that in Canada they had an exemption from disclosing their formula.
The patent does cover a few different chemical combinations, as well as a range of proportions for each combo. So maybe they got an exemption from disclosing the exact contributions will still having the high-level information.
Perhaps “<1 less than 7.0?”
A Fluid Energy rep responded to my e-mail (very nicely, I think):
Hello Darren,
Thanks for reaching out! I’d love to provide some input and clarification to the discussion.
Regarding the color differences on our website versus the Safe-HCl video it’s worth discussing what’s actually in our HCR-7000 products.
As Dr. Strangelove was able to find in one of our patents, our product is mostly comprised of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and monoethanolamine (MEA) with a small percentage of corrosion inhibitor. Adding the corrosion inhibitor turns the product a brownish color so you’ll see in the dermal exposure video on our website, we’re using just HCl + MEA without the corrosion inhibitor to make it easier to see through a clear solution for demonstration purposes. Safe-HCl’s website uses the finished product of HCR which does include the corrosion inhibitor so that’s what’s causing the color difference.
I actually read through the forum and thought it might be helpful to address at least one of the other issues regarding dermal corrosion brought up to help ease any concerns people may have about HCR (hydrochloric replacement). HCR-7000 has undergone third party lab testing in accordance with DOT 49 CFR Part 173.137 Class 8-Assignment for Packing Group, with OECD 404 dermal irritation method, for DOT agency. The study was conducted in compliance with OECD ENV/MC/CHEM (98) 17 EPA Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards, and the results indicated that HCR-7000 is considered non-corrosive to dermal tissue by DOT criteria. This is one of the reasons why our product can be transported via ground in the US as non-hazardous material.
I’d be happy to answer any other questions you or the group may have about the product so please feel free to share this message with the forum, along with my contact information for further discussion.
Regards,
Kye Yocham
US Technical Sales Manager
Cell: +1-405-520-1045
Email: Kye@FluidUSAinc.com
Fantastic response from the company, thanks @Darren_Garrison!
So it’s not a scam, just clever use of the product. I suppose the Safe-HCL company wants to keep the ingredients secret because anyone can buy the stuff and compete with them for the seashell cleaning market. I would be careful using it on some metals, but probably in it’s diluted form it’s not all that reactive.
And possibly doesn’t understand the product well enough to actually write a clear, coherent, but non-specific description of it.
I admire Yocham for sending back a straightforward answer without calling out our snark. Good for him.
Just as a check, though, could one of our chemically knowledgeable go through the letter and explain it in smaller words?
Safe-HCL is NOT a scam!!!
Sean Behun here. I’m the owner of Spectrum Sterilization, LLC which sells the product Safe-HCL.
While I enjoy a good conspiracy theory now and then, I must say that this thread is off the charts with flawed thinking and analysis.
Safe-HCL is everything the website Safe-HCL.com says it is. Safe-HCL is a private labeled version of a patented product called HCR-7000-WL from Fluid Energy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Fluid alerted me to this thread earlier today and I thought I should reply.
This industrial product is primarily used in the oilfield in fracking operations. It has corrosion inhibitors added to it which causes the product to appear 'coffee" colored. Some time ago I believed that there was a consumer need for a Safe Hydrochloric / Muriatic acid because that acid is used in many applications and I was right. There is a consumer need for a safe hydrochloric acid. Seashell cleaning is one of many applications we’re exploring.
I reached out to Sharmon from the YouTube channel SWF Beach Life about making a video using my product to clean seashells and she agreed. That video is on currently on YouTube with the title:
“How to safely clean seashells! Use a safe product and get the same results as using muriatic acid!”
(Note: this forum wouldn’t allow me to post the link because I’m a new user)
Watch the video and remember, thinking is good, knowing is better.
I have a chat function on my website that’s available 24/7. Any of you posting on this forum are free to reach out with any questions
Hope this clears the air.
Thanks,
Sean
Did you reach out to Beachcombing Magazine about using the before/after seashell cleaning image on your site with the claim that your product did it?
Well, I’d say the patent filing and the response are both reasonable. I’m not sure how much of a difference it is to call it a Lewis adduct instead of just saying you’ve protonated ethanolamine in this case. Assuming a 3:1 ratio is actually a 1:1 ratio of acid:base, I’m a little surprised that they’ve got good results up to 15:1.
I will also say that the term “safe HCl” bothers me when the product looks like a protonated surfactant. Marketing versus chemistry, I guess.
It looks like the language was primarily taken from Fluid Energy marketing materials, just like others reselling the stuff. For the intended purpose it’s actually good enough. I can understand not wanting to tell customers that it’s used for fracking, there’s no need for that or really much more information. I think it will clean seashells more safely than using Muriatic acid full strength.
But we did end up in the right place by pursuing the actual information. Your product came through the process much better than many others, you should consider that a badge of honor. Thanks for coming in to talk to us, shows some class, as does your friends from Fluid Energy did as well. Sorry it’s been a messy process.
Thanks for the sanity TriPolar! You made my day!
Hi @Safe-HCL, thank you for the information (and to Kye Yocham as well). It seems clear now that you have a good product.
I will say though that your website gives off some “scammy vibes”. We’re all very skeptical here and have seen lots of products that really are scams, and your site gives off some of the same warning bells, with the lack of technical information and confusing examples.
I would suggest that you put some this information on your site, such as the patent number and a link to the MSDS. I understand that not all of your customers will be interested in this information, but it is very helpful for those with a skeptical eye. Perhaps put in an FAQ section or the like.
The SDMB detective agency is hitting on all cylinders in this thread. Maybe they should call it Dunning-Kruger Incorporated.