diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 90889a4..6a97507 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -509,7 +509,7 @@
 minutes then placed in the developer.  It was initially agitated
 continuously for 2 minutes and then left to stand.  At 31 minutes,
 another 15 seconds of agitation was applied.   The film was removed
-from developer at 60 minutes and fixed/washed as usual.
+from developer at 60 () minutes and fixed/washed as usual.
 
 Findings:
 
@@ -590,6 +590,57 @@
 room for the lift rod.
 
 
+### Update 4-3-2022: Old Tri-X 220 Rollfilm
+
+I acquired some old TXP 220 that had expired 8/1992.  After the good
+successes seen with old sheet film, I was anxious to see how ancient
+rollfilm would work in (semi)stand development.
+
+The first roll was processed in 9 month old D-23 1:1 with an initial 3
+minutes agitation (stand) for a total time of 60 min.  The film showed
+streaking, blotchiness, and some discoloration. The streaking was most
+prominent in the first few exposures.
+
+Suspecting the developer and possible bromide drag, I did a second
+roll in fresh D-23 1:1 with an initial 2 minutes agitation with
+another 15 seconds at 31 minutes (semistand). The film showed no
+blotchiness or discoloration.  Again, there was a thin horizontal line
+across parts of the center of exposures 1 and 2.
+
+Both rolls were exposed at ASA 320. The shadow detail suggests that
+the film pretty much hit full box speed, as is common with (semi)stand
+development.  In neither case was there significant fog and the
+negatives are quite printable.
+
+I am at a loss to explain the lines/streaking the in early exposures.
+Each roll was shot on a different camera, so that's not the issue.
+
+One possibility is that the film is mechanically compromised for
+having been wound on the spool for 30 years.  But I'd expect this sort
+of problem to most pronounced on the last exposures which are wrapped
+on a much tigher diameter near the center of the spool.
+
+Another possibility is that - in both rolls - the first few exposures
+were wrapped close to the inner core of the development reel and this
+somehow contributed to the problem.  Bear in mind that 220 reels are
+way larger than 120 reels and film is approximately twice as long.
+
+Finally, it may be that the label/paper that holds the roll tightly
+closed when manufacured somehow compromised the first few
+images. Recall that - unlike 120 film - 220 only has a paper leader
+and trailer, there is no paper along the length of the film.  This was
+necessary to make 220 film fit in the same dimensions as 120 rolls.
+As manufactured, the tight leader is wrapped around the reel above the
+first few exposures.
+
+In short, the defect here looks much less like bromide drag or bad
+processing.  It looks like a mechanical artifact with film that's
+been left rolled up tight for 30 years.
+
+Since the film is quite usable and I have a few rolls left, I'll just
+avoid shooting anything of consequence in the first few frames.
+
+
 ## Copyright And Use
 
 All content here is Copyright (c) 2021 TundraWare Inc., Des Plaines, IL USA