EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
(7406)
EPA744-R-00-004a
September 2000
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
FLEXOGRAPHIC INK OPTIONS:
A CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES
SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT
Volume 1
-------
-------
Flexographic Ink Options
A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment
VOLUME 1
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
Developed in Partnership by the Following Associations
CflUFORNIfl
FILM €XTRUD€RS
& CONV6RT6RS
flSSOCIflTION
U.S.EPA
naoim
FILM&BAG
FEDERATION
-------
Contact Information
Karen Chu
Design for the Environment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 7406
Washington, DC 20044
phone: 202-260-0695
fax: 202-260-0981
chu.karen@epa.gov
DfE Flexpgraphy Website Address:
www.epa.gov/dfe/flexography/flexography.html
11
-------
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Steering Committee xv
Technical Committee xvii
Participating Suppliers -....• xix
Abbreviations Used in the CTSA xxi
Glossary xxiii
VOLUME 1: TEXT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND OF THE DFE FLEXOGRAPHY PROJECT ES-2
POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND RISKS OF INK CHEMICALS ES-4
Aquatic Hazards ES-5
Human Health Hazards ES-6
Human Health Risks ES-7
PERFORMANCE ES-11
COSTS ES-14
RESOURCE USE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION ES-15
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ES-16
CHOOSING AMONG FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS ES-18
CONCLUDING REMARKS ES-19
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT ~
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 WHAT IS A CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT? 1-2
CTSA Methodology 1-2
1.3 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS CTSA? 1-3
1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE CTSA 1-3
m
-------
Chapter 2: OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS 2-3
Ink Components ......... 2-3
Ink Systems 2-4
2.2 MARKET PROFILE OF THE FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING INDUSTRY 2-7
Descriptions of Different Flexography Market Segments 2-7
Market-Related Trends in the Flexographic Printing Industry 2-11
Markets for Printing Inks : 2-13
Markets for Flexographic Inks , . 2-16
Imports and Exports for Flexographic Inks 2-17
2.3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS , 2-19
Clean Air Act . 2-19
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2-21
Toxic Substances Control Act 2-24
Clean Water Act 2-38
Safe Drinking Water Act 2-31
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ].. 2-31
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 2-32
Occupational Safety and Health Act 2-33
2.4 PROCESS SAFETY ASSESSMENT , 2-41
Safety Hazards of Ink Formulations '....' ...-....: 2-41
Process Safety Concerns 2-44
REFERENCES , 2-47
Chapter 3: RISK
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO RISK '. 3-4
Background 3-4
Quantitative Expressions of Hazard and Risk 3-5
Definitions of Systemic Toxicity, Developmental Toxicity, and Carcinogenic Effects 3-6
Definition of Aquatic Toxicity ..'.'.. 3-8
3.2 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS .. 3-9
Human Health Hazards ';.,.'. 3.9
Ecological Hazards 3-25
3.3 CATEGORIZATION OF FLEXOGRAPHIC INK CHEMICALS FOR THIS CTSA 3-29
Chemical Categories by Ink Formulation 3.32
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AIR RELEASE ASSESSMENT 3-36
Environmental Air Release Methodology 3-35
Environmental Air Release Results 3.37
3.5 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 3-40
Occupational Exposure Methodology 3.40
Occupational Exposure Results 3.43
IV
-------
3.6 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 3-46
General Population Exposure Methodology 3-46
General Population Exposure Results 3-49
3.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 3-52
Risk Characterization Methodology 3-52
Occupational Risk Results 3-53
General Population Risk Results 3-60
REFERENCES • • • 3'65
Chapter 4: PERFORMANCE _____
4.1 METHODOLOGY 4-4
Methodology for On-site Performance Demonstrations 4-4
Tests Performed on Samples from Performance Demonstrations and Laboratory Runs 4-5
Inks Used for the Study 4-11
Substrates Used forthe Tests 4-11
Image and Plates Used forthe Tests • • • • 4-12
Types of Printing Performed • • 4-12
Limitations of the Performance Demonstrations 4-12
Methodology for Laboratory Runs ; • • 4-13
4.2 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS —
SOLVENT-BASED AND WATER-BASED INKS 4-17
Adhesive Lamination — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-17
Block Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-18
CIE L*a*b* — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-18
Coating Weight — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks : 4-20
Density — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-23
Dimensional Stability — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-25
Gloss — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-26
Heat Resistance/Heat Seal — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-27
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-28
Image Analysis — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-29
Jar Odor — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks • • 4-30
Mottle/Lay — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks ..'...' 4-32
Opacity — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-34
Rub Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks - - 4-34
Tape Adhesiveness — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-35
Trap _ Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-36
Highlights of Performance Results for Solvent-Based and Water-Based Inks 4-38
4.3 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS —
UV-CURED INKS 4-38
Block Resistance — UV-cured Inks • 4-39
CIE L*a*b* — UV-cured Inks : : 4-40
Coating Weight — UV-cured Inks 4-41
Coefficient of Friction — UV-cured Inks • 4-42
Density — UV-cured Inks 4-43
Dimensional Stability — UV-cured Inks 4-44
Gloss — UV-cured Inks 4-44
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — UV-cured Inks - 4-45
Image Analysis — UV-cured Inks "••••• 4-45
-------
Jar Odor— UV-cured Inks ,..., . .. 4.47
Mottle/Lay — UV-cured Inks '.-/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'.'." 4-48
Opacity — UV-cured Inks '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 4-49
Rub Resistance — UV-cured Inks '...:'.'.'.'.}''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'' 4-50
Tape Adhesiveness — UV-cured Inks '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 4-50
Trap — UV-cured Inks '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.''.'. 4-50
Uncured Residue — UV-cured Inks .:................... 4-51
Summary of Performance Test Results for UV-Cured Inks '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 4-51
Technological Development in UV-cured Inks '..-..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'/; 4-52
4.4 SITE PROFILES 4.54
Site 1: Water-based lnk#W2 on OPP '."• " 4.55
Site 2: Water-based lnk#W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA '.'.'.'. 4.57
Site 3: Water-based Ink #W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA ••••••• 4_gg
Site 4: Water-based lnk#W1 on OPP .. ....... 4-61
Site 5: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA ••••••• ^^
Site 6: UV lnk#U2 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP 4-64
Site 7: Solvent-based lnk#S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA 4-66
Site 8: UV Ink #U3 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP ...... ^^
Site 9A: Water-based lnk#W4 on OPP 4.70
Site 9B: Solvent-based lnk#S1 on OPP .-••••••• ^
Site 10: Solvent-based lnk#S2 on OPP 4.73
Site 11: UV lnk#U1 on LDPE (no slip) '.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'. 4-75
REFERENCES 4-77
Chapter 5: COST • , •
5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS . . . 5-3
Material Costs '.•...:...'.'."'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 5-3
Labor Costs " ] 5.7
Capital Costs for New Presses ;. 5.10
Capital Costs for Retrofitting a Press '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 5-13
Energy Costs ......... 5-15
Uncertainties '.•'.'.'/.'.'.]'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 5-15
5.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS 5-17
Summary of Cost Analysis Results ; ' [ 5.^7
Discussion of Cost Analysis Results , ' 5.20
5.3 DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS . 5-24
Regulatory Costs 5-24
Insurance and Storage Requirements 5-25
Other Environmental Costs and Benefits 5-25
REFERENCES 5-26
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 5.27
VI
-------
Chapter 6: RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
6.1 INK AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION 6-3
Methodology 6-3
Limitations and Uncertainties • 6-5
Ink and Additive Consumption Estimates , 6-6
6.2 ENERGY CONSUMPTION 6-10
Methodology 6-10
Limitations and Uncertainties •• • • 6-16
Energy Consumption Estimates - 6-17
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ...:.. 6-23
Emissions from Energy Production 6-23
Environmental Impacts of Energy Production • 6-25
Limitations and Uncertainties 6-25
6.4 CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES 6-28
Press Clean-Up and Waste Reduction in the CTSA Performance Demonstrations
6-29
REFERENCES • • • Q-31
Chapter 7: ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
7.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES 7-3
7.2 RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY • 7-8
Silver Recovery •- • • • 7-8
Solvent Recovery • • • •.; 7-8
Solid Waste Recycling ••••• 7-8
7.3 CONTROL OPTIONS • J^
Sources of Flexographic Ink Pollutants Amenable to Treatment or Control Options 7-9
Control Options and Capture Devices for Air Releases 7-10
Control Options for Liquid Releases • 7-12
REFERENCES 7"14
Chapter 8: CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
8.1 SUMMARY BY INK SYSTEM AND PRODUCT LINE 8-2
Introduction ' 8~~
Solvent-based Inks • °'];
Water-based Inks °'^
UV-cured Inks •. • • 8'20
8.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT 8-24
Introduction to Social Benefit-Cost Assessment 8-24
Benefit-Cost Methodology and Data Availability 8-26
Potential Private and Public Costs 8-26
Potential Private and Public Benefits 8-31
Summary of Social Benefit-Cost Assessment 8-34
vn
-------
8.3 DECISION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Introduction ...'...
8-36
8-36
Ink System Comparison '.,., ^ •••-... ^^
Highlights of Chemical Category Information ". '.''.'. 8-41
Hazard, Risk and Regulation of Individual CTSA Chemicals ............... : 8-46
Suggestions for Evaluating and Improving Flexographic Inks .'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ' 8-63
REFERENCES
8-66
vm
-------
VOLUME 2: APPENDICES TO ALL CHAPTERS
Appendices to Chapter 3: RISK
Appendix 3-A: Flexographic Ink Formulations and Structures
Appendix 3-B: Human Health and Ecological Hazard Results
Appendix 3-C: Supplementary Environmental Air Release Information
Appendix 3-D: Environmental Air Release Data
Appendix 3-E: Supplemental Occupational Exposure Assessment Methodology
Appendix 3-F: Occupational Exposure Data
Appendix 3-G: Supplementary General Population Exposure Information
Appendix 3-H: General Population Exposure Data
Appendix 3-1: Systemic Toxicity Risk Results
Appendix 3-J: Developmental Toxicity Risk Results
Appendix 3-K: Summary of Occupational Systemic Toxicity Risk — Dermal
Appendix 3rL: Summary of Occupational Systemic Toxicity Risk — Inhalation
Appendix 3-M: Summary of Occupational Developmental Toxicity Risk — Dermal
Appendix 3-N: Summary of Occupational Developmental Toxicity Risk — Inhalation
Appendix 3-O: Summary of General Population Systemic Toxicity Risk — Inhalation
Appendix 3-P: Summary of General Population Developmental Toxicity Risk — Inhalation
Appendices to Chapter 4: PERFORMANCE . ,
Appendix 4-A: Overall Performance Demonstration Methodology
Appendix 4-B: Facility Background Questionnaire
Appendix 4-C: Performance Demonstration Data Collectipn Form
Appendix 4-D: Test Image Design
Appendix 4-E: Laboratory Test Procedures and Performance Data
Appendix 4-F: Anilox Configuration Data from the Performance Demonstrations
Appendix 4-G: Surface Tension Data from the Performance Demonstrations
Appendix 4-H: Viscosity Data from the Performance Demonstrations
Appendix 4-1: Descriptions and Test Data for Performance Demonstration Sites
Appendix 4-J: Descriptions and Performance Test Data for the Laboratory Runs
Appendix 4-K: Performance Test Data from Laboratory Runs for Inks Not Used in the Performance
Demonstrations
Appendices to Chapter 5: COST .
Appendix 5-A: Cost Analysis Methodology
Appendix 5-B: Supplemental Cost Analysis Information
Appendices to Chapter 6: RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Appendix 6-A: Supplemental Resource and Energy Conservation Information
Appendix 6-B: Glean-Up and Waste Disposal Procedures for Each Site
Appendix 6-C: Pollution Generation Reports
IX
-------
-------
Preface
This draft report, Flexographic Ink Options: A Cleaner Tzchnologies Substitutes Assessment, presents the
findings and analysis of a voluntary, cooperative effort between the flexographic printing industry and the
U.S. EPA. This is not an official guidance document and should not be relied on by companies in the
printing industry to determine regulatory requirements. Information on cost and product usage in this
document was provided by individual product vendors and has not been corroborated by EPA. Mention
of specific company names or products does not constitute an endorsement by EPA.
Comments are welcome on all aspects of the draft CTSA. Please send comments by November 30, 2000,
to:
Karen Chu
Design for the Environment Program
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 7406
Washington, DC 20460
e-mail: chu.karen@epa.gov
To learn more about EPA's Design for the Environment Program, please visit www.epa.gov/dfe. You may
download and print copies of DfE documents directly from the website. To order additional printed copies
of this document or other DfE publications, please contact:
EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 7409
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)260-1023
Fax: (202)260-4659
E-mail: ppic@epa.gov
XI
-------
Xll
-------
Acknowledgments
DfE would like to thank its many partners for their participation in the Flexography Project.
• Members of the Steering and Technical Committees (see separate lists that follow) provided
valuable guidance and feedback throughout the project.
• Volunteer printers and suppliers (see separate list that follows) contributed much time, expertise,
materials, and the use of their facilities; their cooperation was essential to the project.
• Lori Kincaid of the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies
analyzed the data on energy and resource conservation.
• John Serafano of Western Michigan University attended the performance demonstrations,
supervised the laboratory runs, and analyzed the performance data.
• Laura Rubin, formerly of Industrial Technology Institute, contributed to the cost analysis.
• Members of the EPA Workgroup contributed significantly, especially to the risk, cost, and
benefit-cost analyses. The Workgroup consisted of the following individuals: Susan Dillman,
Conrad Flessner, Jr., Eric Jackson, Susan Krueger, David Lai, Fred Metz, and Jerry Smrchek.
• This document was prepared by Susan Altman, Dennis Chang, Cheryl Keenan, Harry (Trey)
Kellett III, and Srabani Roy of Abt Associates, Inc. under EPA Contract 68-W6-0021, Work
Assignments 3-07, 4-05, and 5-08.
Xlll
-------
XIV
-------
Steering Committee
Robert Bateman
Roplast Industries
3155 South 5th Avenue
Oraville, CA 95965
phone: 530-532-95000
fax: 530-532-9576
rbateman@roplast.com
Karen Chu
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 7406
Washington, DC 20044
phone: 202-260-0695
fax: 202-260-0981
chu. karen@epa. gov
Norma Fox
CFECA
2402 Vista Nobleza
Newport Beach, CA 92660
phone: 949-644-7659
fax: 949-640-9911
nsfox@earthlink.net
George Fuchs
National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers
581 Main St.
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-1104
phone: 732-855-1525fax: 732-855-1838
gfuchs@napim. org
Doreen Monteleone
Flexographic Technical Association
900 Marconi Avenue
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7212
phone: 631-737-6020
fax: 631-737-6813
dinonteleone@flexography.org
Alex Ross
RadTech International, N.A.
400 North Cherry
Falls Church, VA 22046
phone: 703-534-9313
fax: 703-533-1910
rossradtec@aol.com
Mark Wygonik
Flexible Packaging Association
1090 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
phone: 202-842-3880
fax: 202-842-3841
mwygonik@flexpack.org
-xv-
-------
-XVI-
-------
Technical Committee
A.J. Daw Printing Ink Co.
Jim Daw
Rex Tamm
Abt Associates Inc.
Cheryl Keenan
American Inks and Coatings
Robert Anthony
Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc.
Lee Kottke
Automated Packaging
Paul Banfield
Bema Film Systems, Inc.
Michael Siciliano
Bryce Corporation
Bob Hawkins
John Yeganeh
Cello-Foil Products, Inc.
Rieger Lesiow
Coast Converters
Sol Schor
Curwood, Inc.
Howard Hofmeister
Deluxe Packages
Steve Steckbauer
Dispersion Specialties, Inc.
William Webster
DuPont Cyrel
Alice Missimer
Duralam, Inc.
D. Dennis Redding
Emerald Packaging
Ron Garriety
Enercon Industries Corp
Dave Markgraf
Fine Line Graphics
Jim Toles
Flint Ink
Michael MacDonald
Dr. Chris Patterson
Fusion UV Systems, Inc.
David Snyder
Georgia-Pacific
Dave Root
Hallmark Cards
John M. Sandefur
Harper Corporation of America
Dan Reilly
Highland Supply Corporation
Gene Wall
Huron River Watershed Council
Laura Rubin
International Paper
James Manning
INX International Ink Co.
Michael Hines
Robert Ramsay
Jim Stein
John Vogel
Kidder, Inc.
Mark Dallmeyer
MacDermid Graphic Arts
D. Bradley Miller
Linda Weglewski
Maine Poly, Inc.
Robert Neal
MEGTEC Systems
Dan Bemi
Steve Rach
Orange Plastics
Carmello Pireano
Pechiney Plastic Packaging
David Ellison
P-F Technical Services, Inc.
Fred Shapiro
Precision Printing & Packaging, Inc.
Michael A. Klekovic
Printpack, Inc.
Doug Cook
Tom Dunn
Progressive Inks
David Argent
Paul Lodewyck
Research Triangle Institute
Dean Cornstubble
SC Johnson Polymer
Rick Grandke
Sericol
Jack Wald
Strout Plastics
Thomas Everett
-xvii-
-------
Sun Chemical Corporation
Sam Gilbert
Robert Mullen
Brijesh Nigam
William Rusterholz
Richard Wagner
U.S. EPA
Chuck Darvin
Carlos Nunez
David Salman
Kay Whitfield
UCB Chemicals
Peter Weissman
University of Tennessee
Lori Kincaid
Waste Management and Research Center
Debra Jacobson
Western Michigan University
John Serafano
-XVlll-
-------
Participating Suppliers and Printers
The following companies voluntarily supplied materials for this CTSA or participated in the project's
performance demonstrations.
A. J. Daw Printing Ink Company
Akzo Nobel Inks Corp.
Automated Packaging
Bryce Corporation
Cello-Foil Products
Deluxe Packages
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Emerald Packaging
Enercon Industries
Fine Line Graphics
Flex Pack
Flint Ink
Harper Corporation of America
INX International
Lawson Mardon Packaging USA
MacDermid Graphic Arts
Maine Poly
Mobil Chemical Corp.
Progressive Inks
Roplast Industries
Sun Chemical Corporation
Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corp.
-xix-
-------
-XX-
-------
Abbreviations Used in the CTSA
ADC
ADD
BACT
BCM
BOD
CAA
CAS
CBI
CERCLA
CESQG
CTG
CTSA
CWA
DfE
EPA
EPCRA
FOG
FPA
FTA
FWPCA
HAP
HQ
HSWA
IARC
LDPE
LEPC
LOAEL
LQG
MACT
MEK
MIBK
MOE
MSDS
NAICS
Average Daily Concentration
Average Daily Dose
Best Available Control Technology
Billion Cubic Microns per Square Inch
Biological Oxygen Demand
Clean Air Act
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
Confidential Business Information
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Control Technology Guidelines
Cleaner Technology Substitutes Assessment
Clean Water Act
Design for the Environment
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Fat/Oil/Grease
Flexible Packaging Association
Flexographic Technical Association
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Hazard Quotient
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Low-Density Polyethylene
Local Emergency Planning Commission
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Large Quantity Generator
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Margin of Exposure
Material Safety Data Sheet
North American Industry Classification System
-xxi-
-------
NAPEM
NCP
NESHAP
NOAEL
NPDES
OPP
OPPT
OSHA
PE/EVA
POTW
PTE
RACT
RCRA
RfC
RfD
SARA
SDWA
SERC
SIC
SQG
TRI
TSD
TSS
UST
VOC
National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Oriented Polypropylene
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Polyethylene/Ethylvinyl Acetate
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Permanent Total Enclosure
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Concentration
Reference Dose
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Emergency Response Commission
Standard Industrial Classification
Small Quantity Generator
Toxics Release Inventory
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (facility)
Total Suspended Solids
Underground Storage Tank
Volatile Organic Compound
-xxii-
-------
Glossary
Acetate
Acrylate
Acute exposure
Additive
Adhesion
Adhesive
Adsorbent
Adsorption
Ambient environment
Amide
Anilox roll
Anilox volume
Aquatic toxicity
Benefit
Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)
Block resistance
a family of solvents also known as esters of acetic acid
a chemical functional group commonly used in UV curing
one dose or multiple dose exposures occurring over a short time (24
hours)
a substance used in small quantities to modify the properties of an ink
state in which two surfaces are held together by molecular forces;
measure of the strength with which one material sticks to another
any material that is applied to one or more surfaces to form a bond
between the two
material (e.g., carbon) that adsorbs (concentrates) a substance on its
surface
accumulation of a gaseous, liquid, or dissolved substance on the
surface of a solid
the existing conditions in the environment or immediate vicinity
a nitrogen-containing compound that usually is basic (alkaline)
engraved steel and chrome-coated metering roll to control the amount
of ink sent from the fountain roller to the printing plates
the volume of cells on an anilox roll hi a standardized area, expressed
as billion cubic microns per square inch (BCM)
capability of a substance to cause adverse effects in aquatic organisms
the value to society of a good or service. From a firm's perspective,
the benefit of a good or service can be measured by the revenue the
firm receives from its sales as compared to the costs incurred when
producing its products. From the consumer's perspective, the benefit
can be measured by what the consumer would be willing to pay for the
good or service. Some goods and services, such as environmental
amenities and health risk reductions, are not generally for sale in a
market economy. However, these goods and services do provide
benefits to society which should be recognized. Economists attempt to
estimate the value of these goods and services through various
nonmarket valuation methods.
an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emission
reduction (considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts)
achievable through application of production processes and available
methods, systems, and techniques; (EPA) the most stringent
technology available for controlling emissions; major sources are
required to use BACT, unless it can be demonstrated that it is not
feasible for energy, environmental, or economic reasons.
a type of performance test that measures the bond between ink and
substrate when heat and pressure are applied
-XXlll-
-------
Blocking
Caliper
Carcinogen
Carcinogenic effect
Catalyst
Catalytic oxidizer
Cationic ink
Central impression printing
press
Chill roller
Coating
Co-extruded
polyethylene/ethyl vinyl
acetate (PE/EVA)
Co-extrusion
Colorant
Control option
Conventional pollutant
Core
Corona treater
Corrosivity
Cross-linker
undesired adhesion between layers of material that may cause damage
to at least one surface upon their separation
the thickness of a sheet or material measured under specific
conditions, expressed in thousandths of an inch
cancer-causing chemical
malignant tumor or other manifestation of abnormal cell growth caused
by cancer
a substance that accelerates the rate of a reaction between two or more
substances without being consumed in the process
type of oxidizer that contains a catalyst
a type of UV-cured ink in which photoihitiators start the reaction by
causing an electron deficiency in the monomers and oligomers
printing press in which the material being printed is in continuous
contact with a single-large diameter impression cylinder; the color
stations are arranged around the circumference of the cylinder and
imprint the image on the substrate .
metal roll or drum with internal cooling, used to cool the printed web
prior to rewinding
the outer covering of a film or web; the film may be coated on one or '
both sides
a type of film substrate used in flexographic printing
a process used to produce a product, such as a film substrate, by
forcing more than one extruder through a common die
a substance that provides the color associated with ink; it can be a
pigment or a dye
add-on technological system or device that removes pollutants from a
flexographic facility's waste stream and thereby keeps them out of air,
water, and landfills; pollutants may be captured for reuse, recycling
or disposal . • . '
a pollutant chemical in wastewater effluent regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA); includes biological oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform bacteria, fat/oil/greases (FOG)
andpH
a tube on which paper, film, or foil is wound for shipment; the metal
body of a roller which is rubber .covered
equipment that electrically charges the. substrate to improve ink
adhesion by raising the surface tension of the substrate
capability of corroding
a component of UV-cured. inks. Such as a monomer or oligomer, that
is capable of reacting to form a solid coating
-xxiv-
-------
Cure
Curing agent
Dermal exposure
Developmental toxicity
Die
Diluent
Direct medical costs
Dispersant
Dispersion
Doctor blade
Dose-response assessment
Dot gain
Dye
5 ' ' ' ' ' '
Electrolytic silver recovery
Exposed population
process of treating inks with ultraviolet light which creates a bond
between the monomers and oligomers in the ink; the reaction (or
"drying") causes the ink to solidify and bind with the substrate
a chemical that participates in the reaction that results in the curing of
UVinks .
exposure through the skin .
.adverse effects caused to a developing organism from exposure to a
substance prior to conception, during prenatal development, or
postnatally up to the time of sexual maturation
any of various sharp cutting forms, used to cut desired shapes from .
papers, paperboard, plastics or other stocks
a liquid with, no solvent action, used to dilute or thin an ink or lacquer;
a type of extender
costs associated specifically with the identification and treatment of a
disease or illness (e.g., costs of visits to the doctor, hospital costs,
costs of drugs). Discounting: Economic analysis procedure by which
monetary valuations of benefits and/or costs occurring at different
times are converted into present values which can be directly
compared to one another.
material that enables a uniform distribution of solid particles
a uniform distribution of solid particles in a vehicle by mixing or
milling "
a thin flexible blade that grazes the anilox roll at an angle to remove
excess ink from the roll before the ink is applied to the printing plate
in a risk assessment, 'the relationship between the dose of the chemical
received and the incidence and severity of the adverse health effects in
the exposed population . • .
the undesired increase in size of a printed "dot" of ink
coloring material which is soluble in an ink vehicle, as opposed to
pigments, which are not soluble, and must be dispersed
method of silver recovery whereby a current is passed between two
electrodes in silver-laden water, plating the silver on the cathode in a
virtually pure form
the estimated number of people from the general public or a specific
population group who are exposed to a chemical, process, and/or
technology. The general public could be exposed to a chemical
through wide dispersion of a chemical in the environment (e.g.,
DDT). A specific population group could be exposed to a chemical
due to its physical proximity to a manufacturing facility (e:g.,
residents who live near a facility using a chemical), through the use of
the chemical or a product containing a chemical, or through other
means. ,
-xxv-
-------
Exposed worker population
Exposure assessment
Epoxy resin
Extender
External benefits
External costs
Externality
Extrusion
Flaniniability
Flexible packaging
the estimated number of employees in an industry exposed to the
chemical, process, and/or technology under consideration. This
number may be based on market share data as well as estimations of
the number of facilities and the number of employees in each facility
associated with the chemical, process, and/or technology under
consideration
in risk assessment, identification of the pathways of which toxicants
may reach individuals, estimation of how much of a chemical an
individual is likely to be exposed to, and estimation of the number of
people likely to be exposed
plastic or resinous materials used for strong, fast-setting adhesives, as
heat resistant coatings and binders
any material added to inks to reduce its color strength and/or viscosity
a positive effect on a third party who is not part of a market
transaction. For example, if an educational program (i.e., a smoking-
cessation class) results in behavioral changes which reduce the
exposure of a population group to a disease (i.e., lung cancer), then an
external benefit is experienced by those members of the group who did
not participate in the educational program (i.e., those inhaling second-
hand smoke). External benefits also occur when environmental
improvements enhance enjoyment of recreational activities (e.g.,
swimming, hiking, etc.).
a negative effect on a third party who is not part of a market
transaction. For example, if a steel mill emits waste into a river which
poisons the fish in a nearby fishery, the fishery experiences an
external cost to restock as a consequence of the steel production. Other
examples of external costs are the effects of second-hand smoke on
nonsmokers, increasing the incidence of respiratory distress, and a
smokestack which deposits soot on someone's laundry, thereby
incurring costs of relaundering.
a cost or benefit that involves a third party who is not a part of a
market transaction; "a direct effect on another's profit or welfare
arising as an incidental by-product of some-other person's or firm's
legitimate activity" (Mishan, 1976). The term "externality" is a
general term which can refer to either external benefits or external
costs.
the production of a continuous product (e.g., a sheet of film) by
forcing a material (e.g., thermoplastic) through a die or orifice
the capability of burning
any package or part of packaging with a thickness of ten millimeters or
less whose shape can be; changed readily
Flexographic printing plate a plate with a raised image that prints on the desired substrate
-xxvi-
-------
Formulation
Fountain
Fountain roll
Four-color process
Free radical
Free radical curing
Fugitive emissions
Hazard
Hazard identification
Hazard quotient
Hazardous
Hazardous Air Pollutant
(HAP)
Hazardous waste
Hazardous waste generator
Human health benefits
Human health costs
a specific color (e.g., Reflex blue) within an ink product line used in
the CTSA (e.g., solvent-based ink#l)
a pan or trough on a press that serves as a reservoir for ink
a press roll that picks' up ink or coating material from the fountain and
applies it to the transfer roll
printing with cyan, magenta, and yellow color inks plus black, and
using combinations of these colors to create all other colors (see
process printing)
an unstable, reactive molecule that has a neutral charge (in comparison
to an ion)
a type of UV-cured ink in which the photoinitiators release reactive
free radicals
emissions that escape from the printing press and leave the facility
through openings such as windows and doors
potential for a chemical or other pollutant to cause human illness or
injury; the inherent toxicity of a compound
in a risk assessment, determining whether exposure to a chemical
could cause adverse health effects in humans or in nature; an informed
judgment based on verifiable toxicity data from animal models or
human studies
the ratio of estimated site-specific exposure to a single chemical over a
specified period to the estimated daily exposure level at which no
adverse health effects are likely to occur
harmful to human health and the environment
air pollutants listed under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as being hazardous
to human health and the environment
by-products of industrial activities that can pose a substantial or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
managed
a facility that produces hazardous waste
reduced health risks to workers in an industry or business as well as to
the general public as a result of switching to less toxic or less
hazardous chemicals, processes, and/or technologies. An example
would be switching to a less volatile chemical or a new method of
storing or using a volatile, hazardous chemical, to reduce the amount
of volatilization, thereby lessening worker inhalation exposures as well
as decreasing the formation of photochemical smog in the ambient air.,
the cost of adverse human health effects associated with production,
consumption and disposal of a firm's product. An example is the cost
to individuals and society of the respiratory effects caused by stack
emissions, which can be quantified by analyzing the resulting costs of
health care and the reduction in life expectancy, as well as the lost
wages as a result of being unable to work.
-XXVll-
-------
Ignitability
Illness costs
Incineration
Indirect medical costs
Individual risk
Inhalation exposure
Ink pan
Ink splitter
In-line printing press
Ion exchange
Laminate
Line color printing
Liquid ink
Low-density polyethylene
(LDPE)
Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level (LOAEL)
Major Source
Makeready
capability of lighting on fire
a financial term referring to the liability and health care insurance
costs a company must pay to protect itself against injury or disability
to its workers or other affected individuals. These costs are known as
illness benefits to the affected individual. Appendix J summarizes
several cost of illness valuation methods.
the process of burning to ashes with the intent of reducing harmful
substances to more benign ones
indirect medical costs associated with a disease or medical condition
resulting from exposure to a chemical, product or technology.
Examples would be the costs of decreased productivity of patients
suffering a disability or death and the value of pain and suffering
borne by the afflicted individual and/or family and friends.
an estimate of the probability of an exposed individual experiencing an
adverse effect, such as "1 in 1,000" (or 10) risk of cancer.
exposure through breathing
reservoir for ink
a device that separates solids from fluids in waste ink and cleaning
solutions, or removes pigments from water-based ink wastes using a
porous cellulose material
a multicolored press in which the color stations are mounted
horizontally in a line; a press coupled to another operation such as
bagmaking, sheeting, diecutting, creasing, etc.
method of recovering silver from wash water Or mixtures of wash
waters, fixer and bleach fix, especially from dilute solutions
to bond together two or more layers of material or materials
process of printing 'line work1 such as text, display type and graphics
low-viscosity ink
. type of film substrate used for printing on packaging such as frozen
food bags
lowest exposure level at which adverse effects to human health and/or
the environment have been shown to occur
under Title V of the Clean Air Act, a facility that has the potential to
emit 10 tons per year or more of any individual Hazardous Air
Pollutant (HAP), 25 tons per year or more of any combination of
HAPs, or 100 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. The 100
TPY limit applies to facilities located in areas with relatively good air
quality ("attainment areas"); the limit decreases in non-attainment
areas.
the preparation and correction of the printing plate before starting the <-
print run, to insure uniformly clean impressions; all preparatory
operations preceding production
-XXVlll-
-------
Margin of exposure (MOE)
Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS)
Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT)
Metallic replacement
Monomer
Narrow web press
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
Net benefit
No Observed Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL)
Non-conventional pollutant
Oligomer
Opportunity cost
Oral exposure
Oral toxicity
the ratio of the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) to the
estimated exposure dose
a compilation of information required under the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) Communication Standard on the
identity of hazardous chemicals, health and physical hazards, exposure
limits, and precautions of a product
the emission standard for sources of air pollution requiring the
maximum reduction of hazardous emissions, taking cost and feasibility
into account
method of silver recovery whereby wastewater is passed through one
or more steel wool filters in which silver in the wastewater is
chemically replaced by iron from the filter
an individual molecular unit that is capable of linking together to form
polymers
any printing press web that is less than 24 inches wide; narrow web
presses are able to do multiple converting operations (e.g., diecutting)
in the same pass with the printing
emissions standards set by EPA for air pollutants that may cause an
increase in fatalities or in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness
the difference between the benefits and the costs. For a company this
could be interpreted as revenue - costs, assuming that the revenue and
the costs are fully determined.
the highest exposure level that can occur without statistically or
biologically significant adverse effects to human health and/or the
environment
any wastewater effluent pollutant regulated under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) that is not identified as a conventional or priority pollutant
a low-weight polymer that is capable of further combination; the
component of UV-cured inks that links together to form a solid coating
a hidden or implied cost incurred due to the use of limited resources
such that they are not available for an alternative use. For example,
the use of specific laborers in the production of one product precludes"
their use in the production of another product. The opportunity cost to
the firm of producing the first product is the lost profit from not
producing the second. Another example would be a case where in
hiring legal representation to respond to a lawsuit, and due to limited
financial resources, a firm must cancel a planned expansion. The
opportunity cost of responding to the lawsuit is the lost gain from not
expanding.
exposure through eating or drinking contaminated substances
ability of a chemcial to cause injury when ingested
-xxix-
-------
Oriented polypropylene
(OPP)
Overprinting
Oxidation
Oxidizer
Ozone
Paste ink
Permanent total enclosure
Photoinitiator
Photopolymer
Pigment
Pinholing
Plasticizer
Pollution prevention
Polyethylene
Polymer
Polymerization
Polypropylene
Population risk
a film substrate noted for clarity, stiffness, and ability to form a strong
barrier
the printing of one impression over another
the reaction of a chemical (such as VOCs) with oxygen; the process of
combining with oxygen
equipment that burns contaminated air to break down harmful
substances (e.g., VOCs) into water, carbon dioxide and other gases
a gas containing three oxygen molecules; at ground level it is a
pollutant formed in part by the reaction of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) released by solvent-based inks; contributes to smog formation
high-viscosity ink
a structure that completely surrounds a source of air emissions,
captures all VOC emissions, and sends them to a control device
the component of UV-cured inks that reacts with ultraviolet light to
begin the curing process
any mixture of materials that can change its own physical properties
on exposure to ultraviolet or visible light
insoluble substance used to give color to inks, paints and plastics
failure of a printed ink to form a complete continuous film; visible in
the form of small holes in the printed area
material (usually in liquid form) that is added to ink to improve the
flexibility of dried ink
identification of substances, processes, and activities that create-
excessive waste products or pollutants, followed by reductions in
pollution generation by altering or eliminating a process or materials
a synthetic resin of high molecular weight resulting from the
polymerization of ethylene gas under pressure.
a compound formed by the linking together of simple molecules
a chemical reaction in which the molecules of a monomer are linked.
together to form large molecules
a synthetic resin of high molecular weight resulting from the
polymerization of propylene gas
an aggregate measure of the projected frequency of effects among all
exposed people, such as "four cancer cases per year."
-xxx-
-------
Present value
Press-side solvent or additive
Primer
Priority pollutant
Private (internalized)
benefits
Private (internalized) costs
Process color printing
Product line
Propylene
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW)
Reactive diluent
Reactivity
Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
Recycling
Reducer
the value in today's terms of a sum of money received in the future.
Present Value is a concept which specifically recognizes the time value
of money, i.e., the fact that $1 received today is not the same as $1
received in ten years time. Even if there is no inflation, $1 received
today can be invested .at a positive interest rate (say 5 percent), and
can yield $1.63 in ten years; $1 received today is the same as $1.63
received ten years in the future. Alternately, the present value of $1
received in ten years is $0.61. The rate at which future receipts are
converted into present value terms is called the discount rate
(analogous to the interest rate given above). The formula for
calculating present value is given in the Cost Analysis module.
a product added to ink during a press run to improve the printing
performance (e.g., to decrease viscosity)
a first coat intended to enhance subsequent printing
a toxic chemical found in wastewater effluent and regulated ujnder the
Clean Water Act (CWA) . .
the direct gain received by industry or consumers from their actions in
the marketplace. One example includes the revenue a firm obtains in
the sale of a good or service. Another example is the satisfaction a
consumer receives from consuming a good or service.
the direct negative effects incurred by industry or consumers from
their actions in the marketplace. Examples include a firm's cost of raw
materials and labor, a firm's costs of complying with environmental
regulations, or the cost to a consumer of purchasing a product.
halftone color printing created by the color separation process; a piece
of copy is broken down to the primary colors to produce individual
halftones, whith are then recombined at the press to replicate the full
range of colors
a group of proprietary inks that are made by one manufacturer, share
certain printing characteristics, include multiple colors, and are
intended for use with a specific ink system (e.g., solvent-based)
gas used in polymerization to form polypropylene
a municipal or regional water treatment plant
a material in UV-cured inks that reduces the viscosity of the ink and
reacts instead of volatilization upon curing ; "
property of being able to decompose or react with other chemicals
technology required under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions
of volatile organic compounds
the practice of reducing environmental wastes by recovering and
reprocessing waste materials, thereby reducing the use of virgin
materials
material used to alter the body, viscosity or color strength of ink
-xxxi-
-------
Reference concentration
Reference dose
Repeat length
Reportable quantity
Reproductive toxicity
Resin
Reverse printing
Risk
Risk characterization
Scuffing
Silver recovery
Smog-related emissions
Social benefit
Social cost
lowest daily human exposure measured by continuous inhalation that
does not have an appreciable risk of deleterious, non-cancerous effects
during a lifetime .
estimate of the lowest daily human exposure that does not have an
appreciable risk of deleterious, non-cancerous effects during a lifetime
(expressed as an oral dose per kilogram of body weight)
printing length of a plate cylinder, determined by one complete
revolution of the plate cylinder gear
substance-specific amount of hazardous material reportable under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
biologically adverse effects on the female or male reproductive organs,
the related endocrine system, or offspring
natural or synthetic complex organic substance with no distinct melting
point, which in a solvent solution forms the binder portion of the
flexographic ink
printing on the underside of a transparent film; or a design in which an
image or type is "dropped-out" and the background is printed
a measure of the probability that damage will occur to life, health, or
some aspect of the environment as a result of exposure to a given
hazard
in risk assessment, the process of using hazard, dose-response, and
exposure information to develop quantitative and qualitative
expressions of risk
action of rubbing something against a printed surface
process by which silver is recovered from printing wastewater
gases, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide,
and nitrogen oxides (NOX), that are released during printing or energy
production operations and contribute to the formation of smog when
exposed to sunlight
the total benefit of an activity that society receives, i.e., the sum of the
private benefits and the external benefits. For example, if a new
product prevents pollution (e.g., reduced waste in production or
consumption of the product), then the total benefit to society of the
new product is the sum of the private benefit (value of the product that
is reflected in the marketplace) and the external benefit (benefit society
receives from reduced waste).
the total cost of an activity that is imposed on society. Social costs are
the sum of the private costs and the external costs. Therefore, in the
example of the steel mill, social costs of steel production are the sum
of all private costs (e.g., raw material and labor costs) and the sum of
all external costs (e.g., the costs associated with replacing the
poisoned fish).
-XXXll-
-------
Solvent
Solvent-based ink
Solvent recovery
Solvent resistance
Stack emission
Stack printing press
Substrate
Systemic toxicity
Thermal oxidizer
Thinner
Tone
Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory (TRI)
Toxicity
Trapping
Tropospheric Ozone
Turbidity
Ultraviolet light
UV-cured ink
Vehicle
Viscosity
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Volatilization
Waste generator
medium used to dissolve a substance
an ink containing more than 25% VOCs and formulated to dry via
evaporation
process of recovering purified solvents from VOC emissions
the ability of a cured ink coating to resist removal during exposure to a
solvent such as methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
emissions that are collected from the printing press and are released
through a roof vent or stack to the outside air, sometimes undergoing
treatment to reduce the emissions
press where the printing stations are placed one above the other, each
with its own impression cylinder
material upon which an image is printed
adverse effects on any organ system following absorption and
distribution of a chemical throughout the body
oxidizer that requires high operating temperatures (see Oxidizer)
liquid, solvent, and/or diluent added to ink for dilution or thinning; a
type of extender
color quality or value; a tint or shade of color
requirement under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) requiring certain facilities to report release of
specified chemicals
property of being harmful or poisonous
printing of one color over another
see Ozone
a condition in which the clarity of water is reduced because of the
presence of sediment, pigment, or other suspended material
electromagnetic radiation of shorter wavelength than visible light
ink that is cured by ultraviolet light rather than evaporation
liquid component of a printing ink; carries the ink from the ink pan to
the substrate
resistance to flow
any organic (carbon-containing) compound that participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions except those designated by EPA
as having negligible photochemical reactivity
passing from liquid to gaseous state; subject to rapid evaporation;
having high vapor-pressure at room temperature
a facility that generates wastes and is responsible for determining
whether the waste is hazardous and what classification may apply to a
waste stream
-XXXlll-
-------
Water-based ink
Wetting
Wide-web press
Willingness-to-pay
an ink containing less than 25% VOCs and formulated to dry via
evaporation
process by which a liquid wets the surface of a dissimilar material by
reducing the surface tension of the liquid
a printing press with a web that is greater than 24 inches wide, usually
in the range of 50-60 inches
estimates used in benefits valuation intended to encompass the full
value of avoiding a health or environmental effect, which are often not
observable in the marketplace. For human health effects, the
components of willingness-to-pay include the value of avoided pain
and suffering, impacts on the quality of life, costs of medical
treatment, loss of income, and, in the case of mortality, the value of a
statistical life.
-xxxiv-
-------
FLEXOGRAPHYCTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
CHAPTER CONTENTS
BACKGROUND OF THE DFE FLEXOGRAPHY PROJECT !....... ES-2
POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND RISKS OF INK CHEMICALS ES-4
Aquatic Hazards • ES'6
Human Health Hazards ES-7
Human Health Risks ES-8
PERFORMANCE ES-13
COSTS ES-16
RESOURCE USE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION ES-17
i
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ES-18
CHOOSING AMONG FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS ES-21
CONCLUDING REMARKS ES'21
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-1
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND OF THE DEE FLEXOGRAPHY PROJECT
Flexographic Ink Options: A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA)
assembles and analyzes the technical research that was performed by the U. S. EPA Design
for the Environment (DfE) Flexography Project! The findings of this research are of
considerable interest to the flexographic industry, both in the wealth of details and as an
overall view of this industry segment at a particular point in time. As far as is known,
this study provides the most detailed analysis ever done on flexographic inks.
The partnership scoped and researched
• three ink systems (solvent-based, water-based, ultraviolet-cured)
• nine ink product lines (2 solvent-based, 4 water-based, 3 UV-cured), and five
colors of ink, including both process and spot (line) colors, for a total of 45
individual ink formulations
• more than 100 chemicals belonging to 23 chemical categories
• three film substrates (clear low-density polyethylene, white polyethylene/ethyl
vinyl acetate, and clear oriented polypropylene)
This CTSA document identifies
• results of 18 performance tests
• potential hazards and risks to worker health and the environment
• costs (related to purchase and use of the ink components, energy consumption, ink
use, environmental compliance, and other regulatory aspects)
• other opportunities for environmental improvements in flexographic inks and
printing practices
• highlights of federal regulations affecting the industry
To ensure that ink formulators, printers, and technical assistance providers will have
access to this information, the partnership intends to make the entire CTSA available in
both printed and electronic formats. For more information about documents and other
materials related to this project, readers can also visit the EPA Flexography Project
website: (http://www.epa.gov/dfe/flexography/flexography.html).
CTSA Considerations
The CTSA is intended to reflect the characteristics of printing inks under "real world" production conditions.
Performance tests were printed on volunteer commercial presses, not on a tightly controlled experimental
press. Worker health risks were determined based on conditions found in a typical printing facility, rather
than those of an ideal workplace. Like any study with this goal, it may lack the statistical accuracy of a
controlled experiment, but it offers practical results that may approximate those of a typical printer.
Flexography currently accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. printing industry output, and
it is the world's fastest growing printing technology, with an annual growth rate of 6.3 %
in 1996. Especially well suited to printing on flexible and non-uniform surfaces (such as
plastic films and corrugated board), flexography prints a wide range of products we all
use, such as snack food and frozen food bags, labels for medicines and personal care
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAF1
ES-2
September 2000
-------
FLEXOQRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
products, newspapers, drink bottles, and cereal containers. States with the majority of
fiexographic facilities include California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, Georgia, and New Jersey. Fiexographic facilities are
generally small; approximately 40% have fewer than 20 employees, and 70 % have fewer
than 50 employees. However, the industry is seeing a trend of mergers and acquisitions.
As mergers cause firms to grow, the selections of ink by an individual company can have
an increasingly significant effect.
In the mid-1990s, the DfE Program at U.S. EPA began working with fiexographic
printing industry representatives to identify an aspect of the fiexographic printing industry
with significant environmental concerns. Historically, most fiexographic inks were
solvent-based, had high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and contained a
wide variety of pollutants. Although the industry has addressed environmental and health
problems of inks through add-on pollution control devices, these have not resolved all
concerns of human health and ecological risks.
Therefore, the DfE Flexography Project, a voluntary partnership with industry, was
established. The research project was initiated by representatives of fiexographic trade
associations, ink formulators, printers, suppliers to the printing industry, academic
institutions, and EPA. The Project partners decided to focus on fiexographic inks, which
constitute a major cost category and have a variety of environmental and health issues.
The Project's goals have been to work with the fiexographic industry to understand the
range of environmental and health impacts of fiexographic inks, help fiexographic
professionals to select the cleanest inks that make business sense, and highlight
opportunities for printers and formulators to take simple, useful actions that will improve
operations and the environment.
Details about the process that was used to develop the CTSA can be found in Chapter 1
(Introduction). The methodology that was used to conduct the research is. addressed in
each relevant chapter.
The CTSA demonstrates that each of the fiexographic ink systems and chemical categories
studied may have health and environmental implications associated with their use. The
results can help printers and formulators recognize these potential hazards and risks, and
identify safer alternatives for some chemicals and chemical categories.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-3
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program is a voluntary partnership-based program between the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various industries. Working with its partners, the DfE Program
identifies cost-effective alternatives to existing products and processes that reduce risks to workers and the
environmental while maintaining or improving performance and product quality. Thus, as shown in the
diagram below, consideration of Performance, Cost, and Environmental Risk contribute to a Decision that
is in the best interests of both the business and society. DfE serves as,a catalyst for lasting change thai
balances business practicalities with sound environmental decision-making. A primary goal of DfE is to
encourage pollution prevention rather than relying on end-of-pipe controls to reduce risks to human health
and the environment.
POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND RISKS OF INK CHEMICALS
A risk assessment is a process that identifies chemicals that may present harm to humans
and other organisms. Hazard identification seeks to determine whether a chemical can
cause adverse health effects in humans or in nature. A dose-response assessment portrays
the relationship between the dose of a chemical received and the incidence and severity
of adverse health effects in the exposed population. An exposure assessment identifies
populations that are or could be exposed to a chemical. A comparative risk
characterization then uses all this information to develop quantitative and qualitative
expressions of risk, for the purpose of comparing ink chemicals and ink systems. The
methodology and findings of the risk assessment performed for flexographic inks are
described in Chapter 3 and its appendices. Figure ES.l shows the risk assessment
process, and the box that follows shows the assumptions that the Project made about a
"model facility" in developing the risk assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-4
September 2000
-------
FLEXOQRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES.1 The CTSA Risk Assessment Process
Workplace
Practices
Source Release
Assessment
Human Health
Hazards
Environmental
Hazards
Risk
Characterization
Model Facility Characteristics
4 presses
2 oxidizers
48" web
6 colors
500 f pm press speed
7.5 hr avg run length
22.5 production hours per day
300 production days per year
7,000 ft3/minute ventilation rate
Release assumptions:
30% of volatile compounds released to air will be uncaptured emissions, 70% will
be stack emissions
solvent-based ink systems have a catalytic oxidizer with a 95% destruction
efficiency
Exposure assumptions:
Press and prep room worker exposure assumptions: 7.5 hour shift, 250 days/year
Routine 2-hand contact with ink for dermal exposure; no gloves
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-5
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Risk Analysis Considerations
The results were based on the ink formulations as submitted to Df E. Reaction products or other
changes in chemical composition resulting from the printing process (e.g., the curing process for UV-
cured inks) were not considered.
Hazard information for some chemicals was incomplete. Where hazard information was not
complete, chemical hazard was assessed by considering the hazards of similar chemicals.
Exposure and risk results are dependent on assumptions of how printing facilities are operated. For
example, dermal results were calculated based on the assumption that no gloves are worn. If all
workers consistently wear gloves when working with these chemicals, dermal exposure and risk
would be substantially lower than reported here.
In order to protect manufacturers' proprietary information, the risk section groups the specific
chemicals in the ink formulations into chemical categories rather than presenting individual
chemicals.
Other factors that may affect risk, such as cleaning products, substrate composition, etc., were not
considered in this analysis.
Risk modeling was based on conditions expected in a "model facility." Key information about this
facility are presented below. Other assumptions are described in Chapter 3. Under different
assumptions, the results could potentially shift.
Aquatic Hazards
Over half of the more than 100 compounds studied in the flexography performance
demonstrations showed a medium or high aquatic hazard concern. Eighteen chemicals
were found to be of high aquatic hazard concern (see the box that follows). Another 34
chemicals were found to be of medium aquatic hazard concern. Because it was not
expected that flexographic chemicals would be released to the aquatic environment,
exposure assessments were not conducted, so risk characterizations for aquatic populations
are not available. Therefore, it is possible that some or all of these chemicals could
potentially pose risks to aquatic life if released to water bodies.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-6
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chemicals of High Aquatic Hazard Concern
Amides, tallow, hydrogenated
Ammonia
.1. Basic Violet 1 (molybdatephosphate and molybdatetungstenatephosphate)
;.l. Pigment Violet 27
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
ilycerol propoxylate triacrylate
n-Heptane
1,6-HeXanediol diacrylate
1-Isopropylthioxanthone
4-lsopropylthioxanthone
Mineral oil
Resin acids, hydrogenated, methyl esters
Styrene
Thioxanthone derivative
Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
A chemical with a high aquatic hazard is capable of causing long-term effects in
aquatic organisms in a concentration of less than 0.1 mg/L.
Human Health Hazards
The CTSA identified three types of human health hazards: systemic toxicity,
developmental toxicity, and carcinogenic (cancer-causing) hazards. Systemic toxicity
refers to adverse effects on any organ system following absorption and distribution of a
chemical throughout the body. Two chemicals used in the CTSA performance
demonstrations (ethanol and silica) presented a high hazard, and twenty others presented
a medium hazard. Many chemicals have not been studied thoroughly for environmental
or health effects, hazards, or risks. Chemicals in UV-cured inks, perhaps because they
are much newer, are much less likely than solvent- and water-based chemicals to have
undergone in-depth testing.
Developmental toxicity refers to adverse effects on a developing organism that may result
from as little as a single exposure prior to conception, during prenatal development, or
postnatally up to the time of sexual maturation. The major manifestations of
developmental toxicity are death, structural abnormality, altered growth, or functional
deficiency. Four CTSA chemicals (barium, ethanolamine, isopropanol, and styrene)
presented a high hazard, and four others presented a medium hazard.
Cancer hazards to humans of flexographic chemicals were also studied by the CTSA, and
the following concerns were identified.
• Crystalline silica and ethanol have been determined to be carcinogenic to
humans.
• Amorphous silica, isopropanol, polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene,
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-7
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
propanol, C.I.-Pigment White 6, kaolin, acrylic resin, two types of petroleum
distillates (hydrotreated light and solvent-refined light paraffinics), and styrene
fall into various categories indicating potential for cancer concerns.
Human Health Risks
The hazard information for the flexographic ink chemicals was combined with estimated
releases and exposures to arrive at risk characterizations for the ink systems and
chemicals. The CTSA identified three types of human health risks: systemic toxicity,
developmental toxicity, and carcinogenic risks. Risk estimates were modeled for both
press and prep room flexographic workers and the general population living near a
facility.
Overall, several systemic and developmental toxicity risks were identified, but no
significant cancer risks were found. Although some inks contained chemicals with
carcinogenic concern, these chemicals cause cancer through pathways that are not relevant
to flexographic workers (e.g., through eating or breathing dust).
The risk posed by ink system will vary depending upon:
, • specific chemical components of inks
• use and handling of inks
• type of toxicity (systemic vs. developmental)
• exposure route (inhalation vs. dermal)
Community Risks
None of the flexographic chemicals posed a clear risk to residents living adjacent to a
flexographic facility. Several formulations posed possible risk for inhalation, but no
formulations posed dermal risk because no dermal exposure to the general population was
anticipated. Possible risk was posed by some solvents in solvent-based and water-based
inks, and by some monomers and other chemicals in UV-cured inks. The risk assessment
also found that exposure from solvent-based inks is expected to be higher than that from
the other two systems despite the use of an oxidizer with the solvent-based system. At the
minimum emissions capture efficiency (70%), the high rate of volatile emissions
outweighs the decrease in emissions resulting from the pollution control equipment.
Worker Health Risks
Risk was assessed by modeling pressroom and prep room worker exposure. Each ink
system was found to contain chemical categories with clear occupational health risks (see
Tables ES.l and ES.2). Alcohols, amides and nitrogenous compounds, and acrylated
polyols were the chemical categories most often found to be of clear worker risk concern.
For pressroom workers, exposure was highest with solvent-based inks because of their
higher air release rate. The dermal exposure for both groups was found to be comparable
for all three ink systems. Individual chemicals that were found to pose clear worker
health risks are listed in the box (Toxicological Endpoints) following the tables.
Selected risk findings include the following points:
Overall:
• Each ink system showed a considerable range among the formulations in
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-8
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
the number of chemicals of concern (2-4 for solvent-based, 1-4 for water-
based, and 1-5 for UV-cured).
• All ink systems had clear systemic and developmental risks to workers.
• Some water-based and UV-cured inks were found to have fewer risk concerns
than solvent-based inks.
• The use of press-side solvents and additives increased the occupational risk for
many of the solvent- and water-based ink formulations. In particular, propanol
and propylene glycol ethers in solvent-based inks, and ammonia, propanol,
isobutanol, and ethyl carbitol in water-based inks presented clear or possible
occupational risk in certain formulations.
Water-based inks:
• Amides or nitrogenous compounds in water-based ink formulations were
common in presenting systemic risks to workers.
• Stack releases were calculated to be higher for some water-based inks
compared to solvent, because oxidizers were not used with the water inks.
Solvent-based inks:
• Uncaptured emissions were higher for solvent-based inks. Oxidizers treat only
captured stack emissions. Because pressroom workers can be exposed to
uncaptured emissions, oxidizers did not appear to reduce the health hazards
and risks for this group.
• Most of the chemical categories presenting a clear occupational risk in solvent-
based ink formulations were solvents. The solvent-based inks released
considerably more volatile organic compounds than the water-based and UV-
cured inks.
UV-cured inks:
• Uncured UV inks posed a clear worker health risk via inhalation. Although
chemical emissions from cured inks have not been tested, it is expected that
curing greatly reduces the inhalation risks to workers compared to the risks
presented in this report for uncured inks.
• Dermal exposure to UV inks also resulted in a clear worker health risk. The
dermal risks associated with cured UV inks are not known.
• Acrylated polyols were the most prevalent category of clear risk in the UV-
cured formulations, based on toxicological data.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-9
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Defining Risk Levels
Clear risk indicates that there is an inadequate level of safety for the chemical in question
under the assumed exposure conditions, and that adverse effects can be expected. A
chemical is placed in this category if it has a Hazard Quotient (HQ) (see Note 1 below
greater than 10, or a Margin of Exposure (MOE) (see Note 2) that is equal to or less than
10 or 100 (depending on the type of available data). If the chemical does not have a HQ
or MOE, but instead was analyzed by the structure activity team (SAT), the chemical i
considered to be of clear risk if it has a moderate or high hazard rating (see Note 3).
Possible risk indicates that the level of safety is slightly less than desirable and that the
chemical may produce adverse effects at the expected exposure level. A chemical is
designated as a possible risk if it has a HQ between 1 and 10, or a MOE that either ii
between 10 and 100 or 100 and 1,000. A SAT-analyzed chemical is of possible risk if i
poses a low-moderate hazard (see Note 3).
Low or negligible risk indicates that there is an adequate level of safety at the expected
exposure level. A chemical of low or negligible risk has a HQ less than 1, or a MOE that
s greaterthan 100 or 1,000. An SAT-analyzed chemical is of low or negligible riskif it has
a low hazard rating, (see Note 3).
Jote 1. A Hazard Quotient (HQ) is the ratio of the average daily dose (ADD) to the
Reference Dose (RfD) or Reference Concentration (RfC), where Rf D and RfC are defined
as the lowest daily human exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of
non-cancer toxic effects during a lifetime. The more the HQ exceeds 1, the greater the
evel of concern. HQ values below 1 imply that adverse effects are not likely to occur.
tote 2. A Margin of Exposure (MOE) is calculated when a RfD or RfC is not available.
t is the ratio of the NOAEL or LOAEL of a chemical to the estimated human dose or
exposure level. The NOAEL is the level at which no significant effects are observed. The
LOAEL is the lowest concentration at which effects are observed. The MOE indicates the
magnitude by which the NOAEL or LOAEL exceeds the estimated human dose or exposure
evel. High MOE values (e.g., greater than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or greater than
,000 for a LOAEL-based MOE) imply a low level of risk. As the MOE decreases, the level
)f risk increases.
Mote 3. The SAT provided hazard levels based on analog data and/or structure activity
onsiderations, in which characteristics of the chemicals were estimated in part based on
imilarities with chemicals that have been studied more thoroughly. SAT-based systemic
oxicity concerns were ranked according to the following criteria: high concern — evidence
f adverse effects in humans, or conclusive evidence of severe effects in animal studies;
moderate concern r- suggestive evidence of toxic effects in animals; or close structural,
unctional, and/or mechanistic analogy to chemicals with known toxjcity; low concern —
hemicals not meeting the above criteria.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-10
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES.1 Clear inhalation Risks for Flexographic Workers
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Chemical Categories of Clear Risk
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Hydrocarbons (low molecular weight)
Alcohols
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Acrylated polyols
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Systemic
Risk
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Developmental
Risk
X
X
X
X
See Defining Risk Levels box for definition of clear risk.
Table ES.2 Clear Dermal Risks for Flexographic Workers
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Chemical Categories of Clear Risk
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Inorganic pigments
Organometallic pigments
Organotitanium compounds
Organic acids or salts
Alcohols
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Organic pigments
Organometallic pigments
Acrylated polyols
Acrylated polymers
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Inorganic pigments
Organometallic pigments
Oraanoohosphorus compounds
Systemic
Risk
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Developmental
Risk
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
See Defining Risk Levels box for definition of clear risk.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-11
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Toxicological Endpoints of CTSA Chemicals with Clear Worker Health Risks
A total of 23 of f lexographic ink chemicals (about 23% of the total) were found to pose clear worke
health risks (See Defining Risk Levels box for definition of clear risk). The possible effects that are
listed for each chemical are those that have been reported in the medical literature in association with
use of the chemical. No inferences can be made from this list about possible exposure, doses, o
severity of effects.
Alcohols, C11 -CIS-secondary, ethoxylated - skin irritant; eye irritation and lung effects
Ammonia - skin and eye irritation; corneal, liver, spleen, and respiratory effects
Ammonium hydroxide - skin irritation, eye effects, nasal irritation, respiratory effects
Barium - decreased body weight, increased arterial blood pressure, respiratory effects;
developmental effects - reduced survival, decreased weight gain, blood effects
Butyl acetate - changes in serum chemistry, fluctuations in blood pressure; developmental effects -
fetotoxicity, musculoskeletal abnormalities
Butyl carbitol - blood and skin effects, liver effects
I Pigment Red 23 - blood, kidney, and stomach effects
D&C Red No. 7 - thymus, reproductive, and kidney effects, and changes in organ weights and
"linical chemistry
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate (SAT) - genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, oncogenicity; developmental
and reproductive effects; dermal and respiratory sensitization; skin and eye irritation
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated, light (SAT) - skin carcinogenicity; skin, eye, and mucous
membrane irritation, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and narcosis at high doses
Ethanolamine - skin sensitizer; respiratory irritation; kidney, liver, neurotoxic, and respiratory
effects
Ethyl acetate - general toxicity
Ethyl carbitol - decreased food consumption; bladder, blood, kidney, liver, spleen, and blood
chemistry effects; altered organ weights; neurotoxic reproductive effects
lycerol propoxylate triacrylate - tissue necrosis, decreased body weight, neurotoxic and
espiratory effects
n-Heptane - auditory and neurotoxic effects, altered serum chemistry
Hydroxylamine derivative (SAT) - genotoxicity, dermal sensitization, developmental toxicity
Hydroxypropyl acrylate - respiratory effects
sobutanol - blood and neurotoxic effects, changes in enzyme levels; reproductive effects - cardiac
eptal defects
sopropanol - dermal sensitizer; blood and skin effects, tissue necrosis; kidney, liver, and spleen
effects; respiratory effects; changes in enzyme levels and clinical and urine chemistry;
developmental effects - fetal death, musculoskeletal abnormalities, fetotoxicity
sopropoxyethoxytitanium bis (SAT) - neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, oncotoxicity, and
developmental/reproductive toxicity. Skin, eye, mucous membrane irritant
Phosphine oxide, bis - skin sensitizer
Propanol - liver and reproductive effects (decreased fetal weight, malformations)
'rimethylolpropane triacrylate - decreased body weight; skin and neurotoxic effects; changes in
linical chemistry; altered organ weights; respiratory effects
Another 43 chemicals (about 43% of the total) were found to pose possible worker health risks.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-12
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PERFORMANCE
The CTSA used a combination of performance demonstrations at 11 volunteer facilities
as well as laboratory tests at the Western Michigan University (WMU). The ink
formulations were printed on three substrates: (1) clear low-density polyethylene
(LDPE), (2) white polyethylene/ethyl vinyl acetate (PE/EVA), and (3) clear oriented
polypropylene (OPP). These three substrates were chosen to allow a wide range of
flexographic printers to benefit from the data analysis. The test image included process
and line printing, to represent a wide range of types of flexographic printing. The
performance demonstration runs also included both surface and reverse printing. All the
inks/substrate samples collected in both the performance demonstrations and the
laboratory runs were subjected to an extensive series of tests. A total of 18 different tests
were conducted to analyze a wide range of ink properties and inks' effects on substrates,
focusing on aspects that would be important to many flexographic printers. The tests
(listed alphabetically in Table ES.3) measure many aspects of appearance, odor, and
durability of the inks, as well as evidence of interactions between the inks and film
substrates. Some of these tests have established quality standards, whereas many do not.
The performance test methodology and results are shown in detail in Chapter 4 and its
appendices.
Table ES.3 Performance Tests Conducted on CTSA Inks
Test Name
Adhesive
lamination
Block
resistance
CIEL*a*b*
Coating weight
Coefficient of
friction (COF)
Density
Dimensional
stability
Gloss
Heat resistance/
heat seal
Purpose
Measures bond strength between the adhesive layer of the lamination and the ink.
In laminations, the ink needs to bond well to both top and bottom lamination
structures.
Measures the bond between ink and substrate when heat and pressure are applied.
Ink transfer from a printed substrate to a surface in contact with the print indicates
that blocking has occurred.
Measures the reflected light of a printed color and calculates a unique numerical
value. The ability to match L*a*b* values is crucial in producing high-quality
graphics and meeting customer specifications.
Measures the weight of the ink film layer on a substrate after drying; affects all
final printed properties, both optical and physical.
Determines the resistance of a printed object to sliding. High COF is important is
some situations, low COF in others.
Measures the degree of darkness (light-absorption) of a printed solid.
Measures how printing conditions distort the linear dimensions of the substrate.
Various factors, such as heat from the dryers, can affect stability by changing the
physical dimensions of the substrate — in either the cross-web direction
(perpendicular to the movement of the web) or the machine direction (the direction
in which the web moves).
Measures the reflection from a light source directed at the surface from an angle.
Measures the degree to which a printed substrate will resist transfer when heated.
Many printed products are subjected to extreme heat during handling and storage.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-13
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ice water
crinkle
adhesion
Image analysis
Jar odor
Mottle/lay
Opacity
Rub resistance
Tape
adhesiveness
Trap
Uncured
residue (UV-
cured inks only)
Measures the integrity and flexibility of the ink on the substrate when exposed to
refrigerator and freezer conditions. Many f lexographically printed products, such
as those used for frozen foods, are subjected to very cold conditions. The inks
must stay flexible and maintain the integrity of their adhesion to the substrate
under these conditions so that they don't rub off or flake off.
Measures how well the image is formed. Good image detail is important for
printing, particularly for small type, reverse type, and halftones (single or process
color).
Measures the type and strength of odor produced by ink film on the substrate.
Many f lexographically printed products are used for food packaging, so it is
important that ink odor does not affect the packaged product.
Measures spottiness or non-uniformity of an ink film layer.
Minimizing mottle is important for high-quality printing.
Measures the percentage of light blocked from being transmitted through the ink
film and substrate. The opacity values indicate the uniformity of ink coverage of
the substrate. Opacity is critical on clear substrates, where an opaque background
is needed to provide a backdrop for other color graphics.
Indicates the ink's ability to resist being rubbed off substrate. Dry rub resistance is
critical on products such as retail bags and bread bags, as the exposed ink film is
abraded and scuffed during end use. Wet rub resistance is very important on
frozen food bags, which can be subjected to abrasion during handling.
Measures the bond of the dry ink to the substrate. Adequate ink adhesion is
critical; if the ink doesn't adhere well enough, it will not be able to stand up to the
normal demands placed on the finished product.
Measures how well one ink prints on top of another. Good trapping is necessary to
ensure adequate overprinting and to produce the desired color hue.
Measures whether uncured residue from UV-cured ink remains on the printed
substrate after the final UV curing station. Uncured ink may have possible
negative results, such as odor, ink transfer to the rollers, and ink contact with food
after packaging.
Substrate type played a major role in performance, especially for UV-cured inks,
showing that the ink-substrate relationship is very important to the performance of
printed products. In fact, the results varied widely among tests for each ink system. No
one test can provide a reliable or accurate indicator of overall quality for any printer.
When determining which type of ink system will be most appropriate for the facility,
printers need to consider the needs of their clients, the type of substrates and products
that they most often print, the desired aspects of quality that are most critical, cost,
health and environmental risks, energy use, and pollution prevention opportunities.
Some general conclusions that can be drawn from the performance analysis include the
following:
• No clear evidence emerged from these tests that either the solvent-based or the
water-based system performed better overall.
• Many tests results showed wide variability.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-14
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• A flexographic printer cannot assume that any of these ink systems or ink-
substrate combinations will be best-suited to the firm's overall needs. Careful
testing of a potential ink system on the various substrates that a printer will be
using most often is critical to obtaining desired quality on a consistent basis.
Table ES.4 lists ink system, color, and substrate combination with "best in class"
performance for selected tests that were run. It is important to keep in mind that most
tests do not have industry standards, and for some tests the determination of a better or
worse result can depend on the needs of a specific printing situation. Also, not all
systems received all tests. Therefore, these results point to the wide diversity of findings
rather than to any possible superiority of a particular ink system, substrate, or
formulation. The "worst" score is also provided, only to give an indication of the large
range in scores on almost all tests. For details on these and the other performance tests,
see Chapter 4. •
Table ES.4 "Best in Class" Performance on Selected CTSA Tests
Test
Adhesive lamination
Block resistance
Density
Gloss
Heat resistance
Ice water crinkle
Image analysis
Mottle
Rub resistance, wet
'Best Score ;
,Sd40 kg
1*0
SLIT '
5W*
d failures
0% femsva)
•.354 -fan6
4T
no fstfura
Ink System
solvent
UV no slip
UV high slip
solvent
solvent
solvent
water
solvent
UV no slip
water
Substrate
OPP
LDPE
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
PE/EVA
LDPE
LDPE
Color
N/A
N/A
blue
N/A
N/A
N/A
cyan
green
green
Worst Score'
.2575 kg
3.2
1.09
32.31
24 failures
36% removal
1050 Mm2
812
failure at 2.2
strokes
aThis score represents the other end of the range of all scores received on this test for all ink systems tested.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-15
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Performance Analysis Considerations
The Partnership's Technical Committee and Western Michigan University selected 18
standard tests and designed a test image that included representative types of printing
(e.g., text, blocks, and gradients).
The substrates were selected to correspond to important flexographic product
segments.
Printing facilities volunteered to conduct the performance demonstrations.
Performance demonstration inks were donated by ink companies. The inks were
considered representative at that time.
Because performance is a function of many factors — including equipment, ink,
substrate, and operator experience — it is possible that a printer who conducted its
own performance tests would have different results than the CTSA.
Ink manufacturers are continually improving their inks, and new formulations on the
market today may yield improved performance.
COSTS
Table ES.5 lists the average CTSA cost results for each ink system. Costs of materials,
labor, capital (new press or retrofit) and energy, as well as regulatory, insurance, and
storage costs, are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. These costs were based on ink
consumption and energy use assumptions presented in Chapter 6.
For this analysis, the cost of inks and additives proved to be the second highest cost
category (behind substrate). Because this was a short-term demonstration, the efficiencies
of a long run with familiar products were not realized. Press speed under actual printing
conditions is expected to be substantially different (and in general, higher) than in this
analysis. However, generally speaking, press speed appears to be the most important
cost driver, and thus a critical variable in maximizing profitability of flexographic
printing, because all costs except that of ink and substrate are dependent on press speed.
Therefore, if a facility can run one ink system (or one formulation) notably faster than
another while meeting product quality standards, the faster system or formulation will
probably also be the most cost-effective system.
Table ES.5 Cost Averages (per 6,000 square feet, at 500 feet per minute)
Ink system
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Materials (Ink
& Additives)
$15.29
$9.55
$18.63
Labor
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
Energy
$0.53
$0.35
$1.03
Capital
$11.87
$11.41
$11.87
Total
$32.98
$26.60
$36.82
As the table shows, water-based inks had the lowest material costs. Water-based inks
were consumed at a lower rate than solvent-based ink and had a lower per-pound cost
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-16
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
than UV-cured. This system also had the lowest energy cost, due partly to the fact that
no oxidizer, which combusts emissions at high temperatures, was used. Water-based inks
had the lowest capital costs, because the presses usually did not have pollution control
equipment or UV curing lamps. Therefore, at a press speed of 500 feet per minute,
water-based inks were the least expensive. If an oxidizer were used with water-based inks
(as is required in some areas), much of the cost savings would disappear.
Solvent-based inks had the highest capital costs because of the expense of oxidizers, and
thus the total cost for this ink system was substantially higher than the water-based
system. UV-cured inks had the highest energy costs because only electricity was used for
this system, whereas the other two systems used a large percentage of less expensive
natural gas. UV also had the highest material costs because of the higher per-pound cost
of UV inks.
Cost Analysis Considerations
Glean-up and waste disposal costs were not included in the quantitative analysis.
The print run conditions may affect the level of ink maintenance, and therefore ink
costs, more significantly than was demonstrated at the volunteer sites.
RESOURCE USE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
The methodology and findings for ink and energy consumption in the CTSA are detailed
in Chapter 6. Table ES .6 lists the energy use and estimated overall emissions from each
ink system.
Table ES.6 Average Energy Consumption (at 500 feet per minute)
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Energy Consumed per 6,000
ft2 (Btu)a
100,000
73,000
78,000
Emissions Generated
(g/6000 ft2)
10,000
6,800
18,000
aElectrical energy was converted to Btus using the factor of 3,413 Btu per kW-hr.
These energy estimates were used in the cost calculations for Chapter 5. Because the
water-ba ed ink systems did not uses an oxidizer, their energy consumption was lower
than for solvent-based inks or UV-cured inks. Much of the energy for the water-based
system was derived from natural gas, which releases less emissions per unit of energy
than does electricity. Thus, the environmental emissions due to energy production were
also lowest for water-based inks.
UV-cured inks consumed less energy than solvent-based inks but were estimated to result
in the highest energy-related emissions, because all energy for this system comes from
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-17
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
electricity. Electricity generation and consumption are less efficient than the direct use
of oil or natural gas. (See Tables 6.19 and 6.20 for details.)
Resource Use Analysis Considerations
Ink consumption was calculated during the performance demonstrations by recording
the amount of ink added to the press and subtracting the amount removed during
cleanup. Several site-specific factors affected the calculated ink consumption figures:
type of cleaning equipment, anilox roll size, and the level of surface tension of the
substrate.
The energy consumption analysis only considered equipment that would differ among
the inksystems. Therefore, drying/curing equipment is included, but substrate winding
equipment and ink pumps are not.
Pollution estimates were developed using a computer model rather than by capturing
and analyzing actual emissions from the facilities.
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
This study is not regulatory in nature, and DfE is a non-regulatory program that operates
on the basis of voluntary, multi-stakeholder partnerships. To provide additional useful
information for the flexographic printing industry, however, the CTSA does include a
basic overview of the major federal statutes that concern flexographic printers (see
Chapter 2). Certain chemicals in the CTSA inks are specifically regulated by name
under at least one federal statute (Table ES.7). In addition, many others are regulated as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
A substantial number of the chemicals in the CTSA, however, remain unregulated under
federal laws. Because many chemicals are not regulated and many have not been not
tested for hazardous properties, printers may be unaware of the possible risks and
hazards that accompany some chemicals.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-18
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHYCTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES.7 Major Federal Regulations Affecting Chemicals in the CTSA
Regulation
Affected Chemicals
Clean Air Act
112(b) Hazardous Air Pollutant
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Styrene
112(r) Risk Management Plan
Ammonia (in concentrations greater
than 20%)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Characteristic Wastes (D Wastes)
(other chemicals than those shown
here can also be characteristic
wastes)
Barium (D005)
Ethyl acetate (D001)
Ignitable solvent-based inks (D001)
Isobutanol (D001)
Non-specific Source Wastes
(F Wastes)
Ethyl acetate (F003)
Isobutanol (F005)
Specific Unused Chemicals
(U Wastes)
Ethyl acetate (U112)
Isobutanol (U140)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 4
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
Dipropylene giycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
2-Ethylhexyl dephenyl phosphate
Isobutanol
n-Heptane
Section 8(a) PAIR
Ammonia
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dipropylene giycol methyl ether
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitol
2-Ethylhexyl dephenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
1,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Propylene giycol methyl ether
Silicone oil
Styrene
Urea
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-19
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 8(d)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl carbitol
Ethyl acetate
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Silicone oil
Section 12(b)
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
Isobutanol
n-Heptane
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Hazardous Substances
(Reportable Quantities)
Ammonia (100 Ibs.)
Ammonium hydroxide (1000 Ibs.)
Butyl acetate (5000 Ibs.)
Styrene (1000 Ibs.)
Priority Pollutants
Surfactants
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
National Primary Drinking Water Barium
Regulations Styrene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
Reportable Quantities (RQs)
Ammonia (100 Ibs.)
Ammonium hydroxide (1000 Ibs.)
Butyl acetate (5000 Ibs.)
Butyl carbitol (RQ not listed)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate (RQ not listed)
Ethyl acetate (5000 Ibs.) <
Ethyl carbitol (RQ not listed)
Isobutanol (5000 Ibs.)
Styrene (1000 Ibs.)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Extremely Hazardous Substances Ammonia
TRI Chemicals
Ammonia (10% of total aqueous
ammonia)
Barium
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Isopropanol
Styrene
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-20
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Personal Exposure Limits (PELs)
Ammonia
Barium
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl acetate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethanol
Ethanolamine
Ethyl acetate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Kaolin
Propanol
. Propyl acetate
Styrene
CHOOSING AMONG FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS
As the CTSA makes clear, the choice of an ink system, an ink product line, or a specific
ink formulation (color within a product line) is not a simple one, or one that should be
based solely on any one aspect. Chapter 8 of the CTSA includes a table that provides
an overall view of certain performance, cost, and resource use test results across all three
ink systems (Table 8.2). The CTSA found that within each ink system, there was
substantial variation in test results among individual product lines. Therefore, selecting
the "cleanest" formulation within a system is just as important as selecting a system.
In addition to competitive aspects such as performance, cost, and energy use, inks also
have important environmental health and safety implications. Every ink product line
analyzed in the CTSA included chemicals that are associated with multiple clear health
risks to flexographic workers (Table 8.3). Each ink system also was found to have safety
hazards for the workplace (flammability, ignitability, reactivity, or corrosivity concerns).
All of the formulations released VOCs and sometimes HAPs as well (Table 8.4).
Each of these aspects of ink use is associated with costs and benefits for both individual
flexographic printing facilities and the larger society in which they function. These
implications, which do not often enter in a printer's decision-making process, can be
significant.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Flexography is a thriving and rapidly expanding industry. As flexography grows, so do
its impacts. Packaging is the major growth area in flexography, so decisions about ink
systems used for printing of packaging will have a proportionally larger impact as the use
of flexographic packaging expands. Also, because of the trend of mergers and
acquisitions in the flexographic industry, individual firms grow in size and influence, so
decisions about inks made by one company may have a greater effect. Decision-makers
should be aware that they are capable of encouraging environmental improvements and
moving their operation closer to environmental sustainability.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-21
September 2000
-------
FLEXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because the use of flexographic inks is expected to continue growing, environmental
impacts could grow as well. Although individual ink formulations studied in the CTSA
contained widely varying numbers of chemical categories of concern, no ink system or
formulation was found to be free of hazards or risks. In particular, specific formulations
in systems that are often regarded as less harmful (i.e., water-based and UV-cured) are
not necessarily more safe. As the CTSA shows, hazards and risks varied considerably
among the systems, depending, on solvent content and other factors.
There may be substantial opportunities to reformulate inks to reduce environmental and
human health risks. For example, solvent-based printers need to keep oxidizers in prime
working condition at all times. Fruiters using water-based inks without an oxidizer
should select inks containing the lowest possible percentage of VOCs. And both solvent-
and water-based printers can significantly reduce their energy requirements by
recirculating warm air from dryers. To identify other opportunities to make
improvements, printers and ink formulators should consider all aspects of inks, including
performance characteristics, risks to facility workers and the environment, and costs.
Knowledge is key to improving inks and printing practices. The information in this
CTSA can help printers and formulators identify potential hazards and risks present in
some inks, as well as identifying possibly safer alternatives for some chemicals and
chemical categories. Table ES.8 lists general methods for reducing potential hazards of
and risks of working with inks that professionals working ,jn or with the flexographic
industry may wish to consider. -
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-22
September 2000
-------
F1.EXOGRAPHY CTSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES.8 Ways to Reduce Hazards and Risks Related to Flexographic Inks
Suggestion
Read CTSA materials to become
familiar with environmental and health
impacts of chemicals in inks.
Select the cleanest inks that make
business sense. Minimize use of
hazardous inks.
Minimize the need for and use of
press-side solvents and other
additives.
Maximize good ventilation, particularly
in the prep and press rooms.
Ensure that all workers who handle
inks wear butyl or nitrile gloves, to
minimize exposure to chemicals.
Ensure that all pollution control
devices are maintained properly and
work correctly at all times.
Identify ways to improve operations
and environmental performance by
looking at all steps in the printing
process throughout the facility.
Develop comprehensive safe working
policies and practices for inks, and
ensure that workers follow them.
Minimize the amount and number of
hazardous ingredients in inks.
Make environmental and health
information about inks more
accessible and understandable (e.g.,
expand MSDSs, provide best practice
tips, include chemical information in
sales materials).
Support research on untested and
inadequately tested flexographic ink
chemicals, especially those with clear
or possible risk concerns and those
that are produced in high quantities
(high production volume chemicals). ,
Printers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Formulators
X
X
X
X
X
Other
(Technology
Assistance
Providers,
Colleges, etc.)
X
X
X
X
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
ES-23
September 2000
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE CTSA
Chapter li Introduction to the
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Design for the Environment (Dffi) Program is a voluntary partnership-based program
between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various industries. DfE
works directly with companies to integrate health and environmental considerations into
business decisions. DfE serves as a catalyst for lasting change that balances business
practicalities with sound environmental decision-making. The DfE approach is intended
to compare performance, risks, and costs associated with alternatives to traditional
industrial systems, materials, and methods. A primary goal of DfE is to encourage
pollution prevention rather than relying on end-of-pipe controls to reduce risks to human
health and the environment.
Flexography is a process used primarily for printing on paper, corrugated paperboard, and
flexible plastic materials. Flexography uses a soft, flexible printing plate that is mounted
on a rotary cylinder. Flexographic presses are equipped with anywhere from one to as
many as twelve color stations. Examples of items printed with flexography include
comics, newspapers, appliance boxes, and many grocery store packages - including cereal
boxes, shampoo and soda bottle labels, frozen food and bread bags, and milk cartons.
Flexography accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. printing industry output, and it is the
world's fastest growing printing technology. The nearly 1,000 U.S. flexography
companies employ 30,000 people, have annual sales of $4.7 billion, and use more than
475 million pounds of ink per year. Over 60 % of flexography companies have fewer than
20 employees.
The DfE Flexography Partnership was initiated by representatives of flexographic trade
associations, ink formulators, printers, suppliers to the printing industry, academic
institutions, and EPA. The trade associations that-worked on the Partnership represent
over 1,600 flexographic printers and ink manufacturers. (The Partners are listed in the
Acknowledgments at the front of Volume I.)
The flexographic industry's many small printing companies rarely have the time or
resources to gather in-depth information on safer and lower-risk alternatives to current
materials and processes. The Flexography Project was set up to provide flexographers
with information that can help them design a business that is more environmentally sound,
safer for workers, and more cost-effective.
The Flexography Project partners decided to focus on flexographic inks, which constitute
a major cost category and have a variety of environmental and health issues. Factors that
were considered in selecting flexographic inks as the subject of this research included
awareness of health issues related to chemicals used in flexographic inks, growth of the
flexographic industry, significant recent advances in flexographic technology, and
increasing attention to regulations.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
1-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE CTSA
1.2 WHAT IS A CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES SUBSTITUTES ASSESSMENT?
This research project (called a Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment, or CTSA)
systematically examined the tradeoffs associated with traditional and alternative
flexographic ink chemicals. These tradeoffs include environmental concerns (such as risk,
environmental releases, energy impacts, and resource conservation), performance, and
cost. Many of these issues are frequently overlooked by conventional analyses.
Although this CTSA focuses on inks, the approach that was used is transferable to other
business decisions. In other words, the foundation for this CTSA is the careful
consideration of all facets that affect flexographic inks, including aspects that many firms
fail to address at all. The goal of this project is to help the flexographic industry include
these aspects in business decisions, and thereby to improve both private business and the
larger environment.
This CTSA involved a detailed comparison of more than 100 flexographic ink chemicals,
based upon actual printing of the inks on three substrates. The Partnership analyzed three
ink systems: solvent-based, water-based, and ultraviolet-cured, the last of which is a fairly
new technology. Solvent-based inks represented the industry benchmark for easy of use
and quality of results. The inks traditionally used in this system, however, contain
solvents made of volatile organic compounds and other chemicals, which can pose risks
to human health and the environment. The Project tested the different ink systems on
three different film substrates that printed on wide-web presses. (See Chapter 2 for an
overview of the ink systems that were analyzed.) The Partners chose film because there
was less documentation of water-based and UV-cured ink systems on these substrates.
They tested the inks on wide-web presses because of the technical challenges facing
flexographic printers in using water-based and UV-cured inks to print film substrates on
these presses.
CTSA Methodology
The Partners developed a detailed methodology for testing the ink systems, which
involved (1) performance demonstrations at eleven volunteer printing facilities and (2)
laboratory runs conducted at the printing facility of Western Michigan University (WMU).
The methodology included the following general steps:
• The performance demonstration printing sites supplied detailed
information about their facilities and the press used in the flexographic
demonstration.
• Each site ran a demonstration.
• Western Michigan University conducted technical analyses of the
printed samples, and provided them to the Partners.
• The University of Tennessee used facility information to analyze
energy consumption and costs:
• The EPA Risk Workgroup used a variety of existing information to
analyze the hazards and risks of the ink chemicals and ink systems.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
1-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE CTSA
• Finally, all the information was combined into this document. The
CTSA evaluates the performance, costs, and environmental and
human health impacts of the flexographic inks that were tested.
1.3 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS CTSA?
The CTSA provides what is arguably the most detailed analysis ever performed on
flexographic ink chemicals. Small printers, inkformulators, technical assistance providers
to the printing industry, and others interested in technical information about flexography,
printing inks, or environmentally focused information about the printing industry may all
find this information useful.
The CTSA provides data to help ink formulators develop high-quality inks with fewer
chemicals that pose risks to human health and the environment. Printers can use the
CTSA to help identify types of chemicals and ink systems that may print equally well for
specific purposes while posing fewer problems for workers and making regulatory
compliance easier. Technical assistance providers can find a wealth of information in
the CTSA to help small businesses think through the many issues in selecting an
appropriate ink system that incorporates health and environmental considerations as well
as performance and cost information.
The benefits of the CTSA include its wealth of detailed information about a large group
of chemicals (more than 100), including many common chemical categories found in
flexographic inks. In addition to the original performance demonstration study, a huge
amount of work was done to bring all the existing information together in a way that
would be helpful to flexographic professionals. The hundreds of tables and charts provide
detailed data about hazards, risks, environmental releases, and other aspects of ink
chemicals that can be difficult to locate but are very important to consider when choosing
or evaluating ink technologies and systems.
The CTSA, despite its detail, represents only a "snapshot" taken of a specific printing
sample demonstrated by a small, non-random number of performance sites at a specific
time. In addition, the inks used in the performance demonstrations were selected and
donated by ink manufacturers, and only three types of film were used as test substrates.
Therefore, readers should not assume that the information in the CTSA represents current
information about flexographic printers, inks in general, or results on other substrates.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE CTSA
This CTSA consists of two volumes. Volume 1 contains the text, and Volume 2 includes
Appendices that provide important background information about the CTSA. Because the
CTSA contains so much information, it may be helpful to use specific sections to suit
different needs.
The list that follows is provided to help readers locate particular types of information
quickly.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
1-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE CTSA
Table of Contents: The Contents at the front of Volume 1 contains a detailed breakdown
of the topics discussed in every chapter. A scan of the Contents can provide a good
orientation to the material contained in the CTSA.
Results and Implications of the CTSA: Readers who want a quick overview of the most
important findings of the CTSA should begin by reading the Executive iSummary, which
precedes Chapter 1 of the CTSA. Chapter 8 (Choosing Among Ink Technologies)
contains a more detailed discussion of the interactions between risk, performance, and
cost, and provides comparative interpretations of the results by ink system and chemical
category. This chapter will be most helpful to professionals who are interested in
considering alternatives to current inks and in developing cleaner products.
Chapter Introductions: An Introduction at the beginning of each chapter provides
highlights of the chapter and the most important results, as well as a table of contents for
that chapter.
Background: The Glossary at the front of Volume 1 defines a number of technical terms
that are used in the CTSA. Chapter 2 (Overview of Flexographic Printing) provides
general information about the flexographic printing industry, the components and safety
aspects of the ink systems that were studied, and federal regulations relevant to
flexography.
Performance Information: The research behind the CTSA examined 45 ink formulations.
A total of 18 performance tests were chosen and run. Chapter 4 (Performance) describes
the results of the tests. The chapter first discusses the performance of solvent-based and
water-based inks, then ultraviolet-cured (UV) inks, and finally profiles each physical site
where performance demonstrations were conducted.
Environmental Information: Chapter 3 (Risk) discusses the environmental issues,
including the hazards to aquatic life, exposure of printing industry employees and the
general public, and the risks that were identified in the CTSA. Information about natural
resource consumption related to this study is discussed in Chapter 6 (Resource and
Energy Consumption), and pollution prevention and control options are mentioned in
Chapter 7 (Additional Improvement Opportunities). Chapter 2 (Overview of
Flexographic Printing) contains a short discussion of federal environmental regulations
that are relevant to the flexographic printing industry.
Cost Information: Different aspects of cost discussed in Chapter 5 (Cost), as well as in
Chapter 8 (Choosing Among Ink Technologies).
Appendices: The Appendices, which are provided in Volume 2, contain a great quantity
of background information to supplement the main text. Each appendix is numbered to
match the chapter to which it relates; for instance, Appendix 3-A contains details about
the information in Chapter 3.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
1-4
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Chapter 2: Overview of Flexographic Printing
CHAPTER CONTENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS 2-3
Ink Components 2"3
Ink Systems 2-4
2.2 MARKET PROFILE OF THE FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING INDUSTRY 2-7
Descriptions of Different Flexography Market Segments 2-7
Market-Related Trends in the Flexographic Printing Industry 2-11
Markets for Printing Inks Overall 2-13
Markets for Flexographic Ink Systems ' 2-16
Imports and Exports for Flexographic Inks 2-17
2.3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 2-19
Clean Air Act • 2-19
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2-21
Toxic Substances Control Act • 2-24
Clean Water Act 2'28
Safe Drinking Water Act 2-31
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 2-31
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 2-32
Occupational Safety and Health Act 2-33
2.4 PROCESS SAFETY • 2-41
Reactivity, Flammability, Ignitability, and Corrosivity of Flexographic Ink Chemicals 2-41
Process Safety Concerns 2'44
REFERENCES 2~47
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an overview of flexographic inks, the printing process used, the market trends,
federal regulations that relate to the flexographic printing industry, and safety issues related to the printing
process. This information provides some context for interpreting the specific CTSA research that follows.
COMPONENTS OF FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS: Section 2.1 describes the major types of ink components for
the three ink systems that were studied — solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured. These categories
include solvents, colorants, resins, additives, and compounds that are unique to UV inks.
MARKET PROFILE: Section 2.2 describes the general flexographic printing market, including sub-
categories, market trends, and markets for flexographic inks in particular.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS: Section 2.3 provides an overview of the federal regulations pertaining to
environmental releases and workplace safety potentially affecting the flexographic printing industry. This
section does not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of regulations.
PROCESS SAFETY: Section 2.4 describes safety issues related to the flexographic printing process.
Flexography is an industry in the midst of major changes. Technological advances made in the past
decade, combined with compelling market forces, have opened up major new growth areas for flexographic
nks and printing. At the same time, regulatory pressures have caused printers and formulators to think
carefully about the safety and environmental impacts of flexographic inks and the ways in which they use
hem.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAF1
2-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO FLEXOGRAPHIC INKS
A functional flexographic ink must exhibit several qualities. It must produce a color or
other visual effect. It must adhere to the material being printed (the substrate). It must
withstand conditions to which it will be exposed in practical use, such as to chemicals,
abrasion, and extreme temperatures. Finally, it must produce a consistent finish.
Different types of ingredients contribute to a successful ink. This section discusses the
categories of chemicals that comprise a typical ink product line, and the three general ink
systems into which the chemical categories fall.
Ink Components
Five types of components allow ink to adhere to a substrate and produce its visual effect.
The solvent provides fluidity, which allows the ink to be transported from the ink fountain
to the substrate. The colorant, which can be either a pigment or dye, provides the color
associated with ink. The resin causes the ink to adhere to the substrate, among other traits.
Additives modify the physical properties of the inks, such as flexibility and the coefficient
of friction. Finally, in UV-cured inks, UV-reactive compounds participate in the
photochemical reaction that cures the ink.
Solvents
Solvents are important in delivering the ink to the substrate. The solvent allows the ink
to flow through the printing mechanism, and then evaporates so that the ink forms a solid
coating on the substrate. Typically, inks are manufactured and transported in a
concentrated form, and the printer must add solvent to the ink to attain the desired
viscosity. A solvent must display several important characteristics. It must adequately
disperse or dissolve the solid components of the ink, but must not react with the ink or
with any part of the press. It must dry quickly and thoroughly, and have low odor.
Finally, it is desirable for the solvent to have minimal flammability and toxicity concerns.
Common solvents in solvent-based inks are ethanol, propanol, and propyl acetate. In
water-based inks, the solvent is water, which is amended with alcohols, glycols, or glycol
ethers. UV-cured inks are different in that they do not have solvents per se, in that the
chemicals are not added with the intention of being evaporated after application of the ink.
Fluidity is provided by liquid, uncured components of the ink, such as monomers, which
are incorporated chemically into the ink upon curing, instead of evaporating.
Colorants
Colorants are compounds that reflect and absorb certain wavelengths ot light.
Wavelengths that are reflected by a colorant are seen by the eye and perceived as colors.
The two types of colorants used in printing are dyes and pigments. Dyes are soluble in
the vehicle, and the final product can be transparent. The most common dyes are basic,
amino-based compounds. The transparent properties of dyes can be beneficial when
transparency is desired, and the colors of dyes are often quite strong. However, dyes can
be susceptible to attack by chemicals and water, and they can also be toxic.
Pigments are small, insoluble particles. They can be made from a wide range of organic
and inorganic compounds, and as a result, have a variety of properties. Particle size and
chemical stability are two variable properties that can yield differing ink characteristics.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
In general, pigment-containing inks are more resistant to chemicals and heat and are less
prone to bleeding through the substrate than dye-containing inks.
Resins
Resins are solid compounds that are soluble in the solvent and often have complex
molecular structures. They cause ink to adhere to the substrate, disperse the pigment, and
provide gloss to the finished coating. Resins also can impart differing degrees of
flexibility, scuff resistance, cohesive strength, block resistance, and compatibility with the
printing plates. Common categories of resins include nitrocellulose, polyamides,
carboxylated acrylics, and polyketones.
Additives
Several components can be added to inks to improve the performance of the finished
products. Examples include plasticizers, which enhance the flexibility of resins; waxes,
which enhance slip, rub and scuff resistance; wetting agents, which modify the surface
tension to improve adherence to substrates; and defoaming agents, which in water-based
inks reduce soap-like effects.
UV-Specific Compounds
The curing process of UV-cured inks is fundamentally different from that of solvent- and
water-based inks. Chemicals in the inks react to form solid polymers upon exposure to
ultraviolet light. Three types of compounds are necessary in order for such a reaction to
occur: monomers, oligomers, and photoinitiators. Monomers are individual molecular
units that can combine to form larger structures known as polymers. Oligomers are small
polymers that can be further combined to form larger polymers. A photoinitator uses UV
light to enable a chemical reaction to take place. Photoinitiators are often aromatic
ketones, and monomers and oligomers are acrylate-based in most commonly used inks.
In free-radical curing (presently the most common commercial form), the photoinitiator
fragments into reactive free radicals in the presence of ultraviolet light. These free
radicals react with monomers and oligomers, which link together to form a polymer that
binds the ink together. The reaction is illustrated in the box below. The photoinitiator
(indicated by -CO-R) reacts in the presence of UV light to form a free radical (»R). This
free radical then reacts with an acrylic monomer (or oligomer) so that the
monomer/oligomer bonds with similar compounds to form a polymer.
-CO-R-
Energy
•»-CO•+•R
•R + CHZ =CH-COOR -> -[CH2 -CR-COOR]n
Ink Systems
The primary difference among the three major ink systems is the method used for
drying or curing the ink. Solvent-based and water-based inks are dried using
evaporation, whereas UV-cured inks are cured by chemical reactions.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-4
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Solvent-based Inks
Solvent-based inks were the first printing inks available commercially. Historically they
have been very popular because they dry quickly, perform well, and allow printers a wide
choice of products. The solvents in these inks, however, are primarily volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), which have concerns for health and safety, as they are usually very
flammable. Environmentally, VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone,
which is a component of smog and causes respiratory and other health problems. Partly
because of these concerns, other types of inks were developed and markets for them began
to develop.
Water-based Inks
The primary solvent in water-based inks is water, but it is important to realize that water-
based inks also can and usually do contain varying and often substantial percentages of
organic solvents and VOCs. The colorants for water-based inks are very similar to those
for solvent-based inks, but resins and additives are generally quite different. Water-based
inks are often less flammable than solvent-based inks and are thus easier to store and use.
Depending on the VOC content, they may also have fewer environmental concerns.
However, they may take significantly longer to dry and are often not as easy to use as
solvent-based inks.
Ultraviolet-cured Inks
UV-cured inks comprise a comparatively new ink technology in the flexographic printing
industry. They are very different from solvent- and water-based inks in that they are cured
through chemical reactions rather than drying through evaporation. Because of this, UV-
cured inks do not contain traditional organic solvents, which means they do not emit
VOCs. However, they do contain many chemicals that have not been tested
comprehensively for environmental, health, and safety impacts. Future research is needed
on untested UV chemicals. UV inks have found a growing market outlet in narrow-web
printing.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-5
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
PRINTING WITH A CENTRAL IMPRESSION FLEXOGRAPHIC PRESS
There are three major types of flexographic printing presses: in-line, stack, and centr
impression (CI). The CI press was selected for use in the CTSA performanc
demonstrations. In many ways the CI press represents the standard for quality in th
flexographic printing industry, especially in converting. This type of press has a particula
advantage in holding tight register, which allows it to be used for technically demanding
multiple-color jobs on many different substrates. As graphic design in the packaging are
has become more complex, flexography has been able to increase its market share largelj
because of the registration capabilities of the CI press (Flexography: Principles and
Practices, fifth edition, volume 6, page 7).
The CI press is distinguished and named for its structural configuration (see Figure 2.1)
in which different color stations are arranged around a single large (central impression
drum. The number of stations can vary. Most CI presses have six color stations, bu
presses are now being built with eight and ten stations. The presses used in the CTSA
performance demonstrations had six color stations.
The DfE Flexography Project Partners chose to run the performance demonstrations on
wide web CI presses with a target width of 24 inches. (Suggested specifications of the
presses chosen for the performance demonstrations are given in Appendix 4-A.) The poin
of choosing this type of press was to allow the Partners to investigate the capabilities oi
ink systems on film substrates, which represent some of the most complex printing
situations and also the anticipated future direction of flexographic printing. Wide web
printing in particular can pose many challenges. As a case in point, at the time the Project
was being developed, UV-cured inks were making inroads in narrow-web printing but not
yet in wide-web printing.
Figure 2.1
Diagram of Central Impression Press (from Flexography: Principles and Practices,
5th edition, volume 6, page 6).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-6
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPH1C PRINTING
2.2 MARKET PROFILE OF THE FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING INDUSTRY
Selection of the flexography industry for this study was based, in part, on the vitality of
the industry. For several years, flexography has experienced some of the fastest growth
among printing industries worldwide, with an average annual growth rate of 6.3 %.'
In 1997, the U.S. Census reported that the United States had 914 commercial printing
establishments in which flexographic printing was the primary print process. These
establishments employed 30,550 employees, with a payroll of $1,030,023,000.2 However,
many more facilities — about 2,300 printing facilities in the U.S. — operated flexographic
presses.3
The proportion of the printing industry that is made up by flexographic printing has
steadily grown. In 1994 flexographic printing accounted for 64% of the U.S. printing
market share; by 1995 this portion had grown to 75%. In 1996, the flexographic printing
industry was a $44 billion dollar industry growing at a rate of 6.3% per year.4 Wide-web
flexography, the segment upon which this CTSA was based, was estimated as a $16 billion
industry in 1996,5 and that grew by an estimated 7% in 1999.6
Historically, flexdgraphic printing facilities have been concentrated in the Midwest. These
states continue to dominate, but with expansion of the industry, more facilities have opened
in California and Texas. Close to 60% of all flexographic facilities are'located in ten
states: California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.7
Flexographic facilities are typically small; approximately 61 %^have fewer than 20
employees, and roughly 83% have fewer than 50 employees.8 The smallest facilities tend
to focus exclusively on flexographic printing and predominantly operate narrow web
presses. The largest facilities tend to operate a combination of graphic arts processes and
produce various forms of flexible packaging.9
Descriptions of Different Flexography Market Segments
In 1997, the U.S. Department of Commerce introduced a new industry classification
system, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). NAICS replaced the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system as the standard classification system for the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. Under NAICS, an industry is generally defined as
a group of establishments that have similar production processes. Printing and Related
Support Activities is listed under NAICS code 323. Commercial Flexographic Printing is
tracked under NAICS code 323112. It is defined as an industry comprised of
establishments engaged in flexographic printing, excluding publishing (with certain
exceptions, including books and manifest business forms).10
The four-digit SIC code 2893 (Printing Ink) is now NAICS code 32591. Flexible packaging
segments are also covered by several NAICS codes. Table 2.1 matches the 1997 NAICS
codes with the 1987 SIC codes for flexographic printing, flexographic inks, and flexible
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-7
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
packaging products. The flexographic inks and printing segments have been highlighted
in the table (in grey shading), as these are the primary focus of this CTSA.
Table 2.1 1997 Flexography NAICS Codes Matched with 1987 SIC Codes
code
322
322221
322222
322223
322224
322225
323
323112
323112
325
325910
326
326111
326112
1997 NAICS U.S. Description
SIC
code
1987 SIC U.S. Description
Paper Manufacturing
Coated and Laminated Packaging
Paper-and Plastics Film
Manufacturing
Coated and Laminated Paper
Manufacturing
Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper
Bag Manufacturing
Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bag
Manufacturing
Laminated Aluminum Foil
Manufacturing for Flexible
Packaging Uses
2671*
2672
2679*
2673*
2674
3497*
Printing and Related Support Activities
Commercial Flexographic Printing
Commercial Flexographic Printing
(Continued)
2759*
2771*
2782*
Packaging Paper and Plastics Film,
Coated and Laminated (single-web
paper, paper multiweb laminated rolls
and sheets)
Coated and Laminated Paper, Not
Elsewhere Classified
Converted Paper and Paperboard
Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
(wallpaper and gift wrap paper)
Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper Bags
(coated or multiweb laminated bags)
Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bags
Metal Foil and Leaf (laminated
aluminum foil rolls and sheets for
flexible packaging uses)
•* f ~ ^ fff
Commercial Printing, Not Elsewhere
Classified (flexographic printing)
Greeting Cards (flexographic printing
of greeting cards)
Blankbooks, Loose-leaf Binders and
Devices (ffexographic printing of
checkbooks)
Chemical Manufacturing ; -
Printing Ink Manufacturing
2893*
Bronze Ink, Flexographic Ink, Gold Ink,
Gravure Ink, Letterpress tnk/
Lithographic Inc, Offset Ink, Printing
Ink: base or unfinished, Screen
Process Ink, fnk * duplicating
Plastics Product Manufacturing
Unsupported Plastics Bag
Manufacturing
Unsupported Plastics Packaging
Film and Sheet Manufacturing
2673*
2671*
Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper Bags
(plastic bags)
Packaging Paper and Plastics Film,
Coated and Laminated (plastics
packaging film and sheet)
•Indicates part of a 1987 SIC category
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-8
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPH1C PRINTING
The greatest growth of the flexographic marketplace recently has been seen in the
Corrugated, Folding Carton, and Labels segments.11
Flexible Packaging
Flexible packaging is defined as any package or part of packaging with a thickness of ten
millimeters or less whose shape can be readily changed. Most of the printing of flexible
packaging is done by flexographic printing processes. According to the Flexible Packaging
Association (FPA), the flexible packaging industry employed 375,000 people, and
converters-employed 87,000 in 1998 12 Based on U.S. Department of Commerce census
data, FPA estimated that the flexible packaging industry grew 3.2 in 1997 to $17.5 billion
(Table 2.2). In 1998, the flexible packaging industry grew by approximately 3% to $18.5
billion and it is forecasted to grow by 6.9% in upcoming years.13 The President of the
Flexible Technical Association stated in May 1999 that about 65% of packaging is
accounted for by flexography.14
Table 2.2 Relevant Categories for Flexographic Printers in Flexible Packaging
Category
Paper coating and
laminating, packaging
Bags: plastics,
laminated, and coated
Bags: uncoated paper
and multi-wall
Metal foil and leaf
TOTAL
SIC
Code
2671
2673
2674
3497
Value of
Shipments
(1997)1
$4.5 billion
$7.5 billion
$3.0 billion
$2.5 billion
$17.5 billion
Sample Products
Bread wrappers, coated or
laminated packaging paper,
waxed paper for packaging
Frozen food bags, trash bags,
plastic merchandise bags
Paper grocery and shopping
bags, glassine bags, un-coated
paper merchandise bags
Foil lids in frozen foods, foil
laminated to paper or other
materials
1FPA Estimates (FPA, 1998)
The demand for flexible packaging is driven by food products (particularly fresh produce
and snack foods), pharmaceutical products, surgical and medical equipment, agricultural
products, industrial chemicals, household goods, garden supplies, pet food, cosmetics, and
retail merchandise. Food products alone account for 50% of the demand for flexible
packaging; medical and pharmaceutical products constitute 25 %.
Every year the FPA conducts a survey of its member companies (consisting of printers,
converters, packaging companies, packaging schools, and other related companies), to
obtain industry statistics. .In its 1998 Outlook Survey respondents (94 companies) were
asked what they thought the outlook for their industry might be in the next five years.
Figure 2.1 shows highlights of the 1998 responses. (Categories total more than 100%
because respondents could mention multiple issues.)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-9
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Figure 2.1 Flexible Packaging Industry's 1998 Vision of Next 5 Years
H Mergers and Acquisitions
I I Technological Advances
Q Industry Growth
I | Globalization
[3 Rigid-to-Flexible Conversion
Source: FPA, 1998 Outlook Survey
Tags and Labels
Flexography dominates the market for tag and label printing, which has surged over the
past decade. Labels and tags comprised $9 billion in 1998, or 9% of the North American
packaging market.15
Corrugated Containers
Corrugated containers provide an economical source of strong, versatile packaging.
Corrugated board is typically made of kraft linerboard, which uses virgin, unbleached,
softwood pulp. The corrugated container industry is one of the largest industries utilizing
flexographic printing. In 1996, the corrugated container industry was a $18 billion
industry.16 It is also one of the fastest-growing industries, with an average annual growth
rate of 6% between 1993 and 1998."
Corrugated materials are characterized by irregularities, which in the past made it difficult
or expensive to print high-quality graphics directly on the corrugated board. As the role
of corrugated packaging has expanded from simply protecting its contents for transport and
handling to generating customer interest at the point of sale, technology has also improved.
By the late 1990s, flexographic printers could print directly on corrugated substrates while
maintaining high print quality, thereby increasing the use of corrugated containers.
Flexography prints 14 million tons of corrugated material each year, exceeding all other
paper/paperboard end-use markets such as folding cartons, paper cups, milk cartons, and
envelopes.18 In 1996, corrugated containers accounted for 45% of the flexographic printing
market. Flexography accounted for 20% of the folding carton sector alone in 1997, and
this was expected to increase to between 30% and 40% by the year 2000.19
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-10
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Market-Related Trends in the Flexographic Printing Industry
As print quality has improved, flexographic printing has successfully penetrated additional
printing markets. Between 1995 and 1997 the most dramatic changes were seen in the
Tags, Tapes and Labels segment. In 1995 only 55% of these products were printed by
flexography; by 1997 this number increased to 75 %. The most dramatic decrease occurred
in the Folding Cartons segment; printing of these products by flexography dropped from
40% to 15-20% between 1995 and 1997. This may be due to the shift in the packaging
industry from rigid to flexible packaging.
Industry experts predict that flexographic market share will grow to 20 % in coming years.w
A variety of technical, economic, and industry marketing factors account for this anticipated
growth, as described in the following paragraphs.
Improved quality of flexographic printing: Early print quality of flexography was
typically inferior to that of lithography and gravure. Technological advances have greatly
improved the quality of flexography, leading to greater use of color and more sophisticated
and colorful design. These technological improvements in flexographic printing have
resulted in increased acceptance of flexography by print buyers.
Increased demand for flexographic printing: Because of quality improvements and lower
costs, flexography is expected to take some market share away from other printing
segments.
Expanded applications for flexible packaging: In recent years there has also been a shift
from rigid packaging (e.g., cardboard boxes, glass) to soft packaging. This in turn has
increased the need for printing of flexible packaging of fresh produce, drugs,
surgical/medical, snack foods, and agricultural products/industrial chemicals.21
It is expected that demand for flexible packaging will continue to increase, leading to
increasing growth in the use of flexographic inks and printing processes. The flexible
packaging industry was expected to grow by an estimated 3.7% to $18.1 billion in 1998.
Figure 2.2 illustrates the growth in the flexible packaging industry between 1991 and
. 1998.22
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-11
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Figure 2.2 Size of Flexible Packaging Industry, 1991-1998
(Billions of Dollars)
• 1991
D 1994
B 1997*
1992
1995
1998**
1993
1996*
*FPA Estimate
*FPA Forecast Source: FPA, 1998
Shorter print runs with more variability and faster delivery: Increasing market
segmentation, and significant technological improvements in the flexible packaging and
printing industries, have caused many industries to expand the alternatives within a product
line. For example, potato chip manufacturers may market a variety of products such as
"light", "low salt", and "barbecue", where there once was only one product. This trend
has also led to more applications for pressure-sensitive labels.23
Another aspect of this trend has been a move toward shorter printing turnaround and faster
delivery. Packaging now acts as "on-the-shelf" promotion, requiring shorter runs for
specialized products. With comparable quality and lower cost of printing plates,
flexography is able to respond to the demands for shorter, more frequent runs more
economically than the gravure and lithographic processes.
Expanded variety of products: In recent years the combination of general economic
growth and improvements in the flexible packaging and flexographic printing quality have
led to greater use of flexography for printing a wide variety of packaging, including
packaged fresh foods, convenience foods, drugs, surgical and medical products, and
agricultural and industrial products and chemicals.
Digital Technology: Recent, rapid growth in digital prepress and output technology have
created a variety of new markets and applications for digitally printed products.
Other factors that will tend to influence the future of flexographic printing include:
• Growth of new electronic "publication" venues, such as the Internet
• Regulatory issues
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-12
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
• Continued mergers and acquisitions
• Rapidly increasing competition
Globalization of trade
The combined long-term effects of all these trends are not clear, but some industry experts
predict potentially difficult times ahead for small printers and those that do not continue to
confront the rapidly changing marketplace of the future.
Markets for Printing Inks Overall
The use of flexographic inks has been increasing faster than that of any other ink type, a
trend that is expected to continue. According to Ink World magazine, in 1997 the
flexographic ink market was growing at a rate of 6-8 % annually, with the largest gains in
the Corrugated, Folded Carton and Labels sectors.24 Flexographic inks represented 18%
(about $720 million) of the $4 billion printing ink market in 1997.25
The largest consumers of printing ink overall in 1998 were the publication and commercial
segments of the printing industry, followed by the packaging ink segment.26 In 1998,
flexographic inks made up 58% of the packaging ink segment but only 3% of the
publication and commercial printing ink segment (Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
Figure 2-3 Market Composition of the Publication and Commercial Printing Ink
Segment (1998)
Letterpress
Litho. Heatset
Gravure
Qj Litho. News and No-heat
H . Litho. Sheetfed
§T] Flexography
Source: NAPIM, 1999
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-13
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Figure 2-4 Market Composition of the Packaging Ink Segment (1998)
40% -
35% -
30% -
25% -
20% -
15%-
10%-
Other
Flexo. Water-based
Gravure Water-based
Litho. Sheetfed
Flexo. Solvent-based
Gravure Solvent-based
Source: NAPIM, 1999
According to industry reports, 1995 -1998 were difficult years for ink manufacturers.27
Faced with increasing raw material costs and aggressive pricing strategies by the largest
manufacturers, many manufacturers experienced decreases in sales growth. Raw material
costs have been a particular problem for the industry since prices began to rise dramatically
hi 1994. Raw material costs accounted for 57% of the value of shipments in 1995 and
1996.28
In the past few years the printing ink industry has experienced a very active period of
mergers and acquisitions, reflecting a similar trend in flexography. This is reflected in the
volume of sales for the largest ink companies. As shown in Table 2.3, Sun Chemical had
more than three times the 1997 sales dollars than the number 2 company, Flint Ink. The
top 20 companies in Table 2.5 totaled $3,940 million in 1997 sales.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOiRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.3 Leading U.S. Ink Manufacturers in 1^97
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
Com oan v
Sun Chemical
Flint Ink
INX International
The Ink Company
Alper Ink Group
Siegwerk
Superior Printing Ink
Heritage Inks International
SICPA Industries of America
Van Son Ink Corp. (of
America)
Wikoff Color Corp.
Nazdar
Color Converting Industries
Handschy Industries
Coates Brothers Inc.
Toyo Ink America
Braden Sutphin Ink Co.
Louis Werneke Co.
Central Ink
Manders Premier
Total sales of too 20 firms
Location
Fort Lee, NJ
Detroit, Ml
Elk Grove Village, IL
W. Sacramento, CA
New York, NY
Lynchburg, VA
New York, NY
Edison, NJ
Springfield, VA
Mineola, NY
Fort Mill, SC
Shawnee, KS
Des Moines, IA
Bellwood, IL
Rutherford, NJ
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Cleveland, OH
Plymouth, MN
West Chicago, IL
Niles. IL
Sales (Smillibn)
2,dooa
625
310
125
120
80
78
62
60
60
59
57
49
41
40
40
38
35
31
30
3.940
Source: Ink World, April 1997.
a$2 billion in worldwide printing ink sales. $1 billion in North American ink sales, including
revenues from General Printing Ink (GPI), US Ink, and Kohl & Madden.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Markets for Flexographic Ink Systems
The Solvent-based Ink System
Solvent-based inks are widely used in many flexographic printing processes. They are
generally considered to be the industry standard for ease of use and quality of printing.
However, use of solvent-based inks has raised a number of environmental concerns, and
other ink systems were developed partly to improve on some of these concerns.
The Water-based Ink System
Water-based inks were first used to print kraft linerboard for decorative corrugated
cartons. Improvements in the printability of water-based inks paralleled concerns about
environmental regulations related to use of solvent-based inks. This spurred the increased
use of water-based inks in many other areas of flexographic printing. In 1998, water-based
inks made up 51 % of the printing inks consumption ($435 million of $850 million total)
and 60% of the volume of all flexographic inks.29 In 1999 all newsprint was printed with
water-based inks,30 about 30% of all film was printed with water-based inks, and wide-web
printing consisted of 51 % water-based inks.31 Water-based inks are now used to print 80%
of the total market of printing films, corrugated, paper and paperbbard, low-end giftwrap.32
The UV-cured Ink System
Packaging that comes in direct contact with food and medicine usually has not been printed
with UV-cured inks because of the odor from any uncured ink and because of the potential
for monomers in the ink to migrate through the packaging to the product. Newer
developments have improved UV technology in both areas, and UV flexographic printing
may eventually stake a market share in this lucrative segment of packaging. Cationic inks,
because they cure more thoroughly, could play .a significant role in expanding these
markets.33
The decrease in the amount of photoinitiator (the most expensive component) required for
UV technology, and the increasing size of the market for UV inks (especially in the
narrow-web field), are causing the price of UV inks to drop. The use of UV inks has also
been steadily increasing. The use of UV flexographic inks grew by 12% in 1999.34 This
technology has gained a strong foothold in narrow-web labels and tags. By 1998 UV
accounted for at least $85 million in ink consumption.35
This combination of factors is expected to cause UV curing to continue to grow in market
share, and to make some inroads into wide-web printing.
However, the technology to remove VOCs and other harmful chemicals from solvent-based
ink emissions improved markedly during the 1990s. In addition, regulators began to apply
environmental regulations to water-based ink emissions as well as to solvent-based inks.
Partly for these reasons, the market for UV inks has not increased as rapidly as was once
expected.
Table 2.4 lists the dollar volume of inks used by different'flexographic product markets.
One of the largest industries to use flexographic inks is the packaging industry, which uses
90% of flexographic inks.36 Table 2.5 shows the quantity and value of product shipments
of flexographic inks in 1997. The total value of shipments of flexographic inks in that year
was $703.1 million.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPH1C PRINTING
Table 2.4 Use of Flexographic Inks by Product Category
Product
Flexible Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Food Containers
Labels/Envelope/Commerciai Printing
Bags
Newspaper
Household Paper
Miscellaneous
Wall Coverings
Rigid Plastics
Folding Cartons
Total
1994 Ink Use ($ million V
290
150
50
45
40
25
20
20
15
10
10
675
a Wainberg, Peter. 1995. "Not Only Flexo Ink...But Technology." FLEXO, June 1995.
Table 2.5 1997 Shipments of Flexographic Inks
Ink type
Solvent-based
Water-based
News and Commercial
Other Flexographic
Flexographic , n.s.k."
Total
Product Shipments
Value (million dollars)
160.5
334.2
102.4
50.6
55.4
703.1
Source: U.S. Department of Census, 1999.
a NAPIM, 1998.
b Not specified by kind.
Imports and Exports for Flexographic Inks
Exports of colored flexographic inks have been rising over recent years, but import volume
; decreased significantly in 1999.
NAPIM estimated 1998 total U.S. printing ink exports at 52 million kilograms (about 115
million pounds), a 9.7% increase over 1997. Major destinations for exports of U.S.
printing inks include Canada, South America, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Mexico, Central
America, and the Carribean. Exports to Mexico grew by 76.4% between 1997 and the
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
first 11 months of 1998.37 This may be due to the increased trade opportunities made
available through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Exports of black flexographic inks dropped by about 50% between 1998 and 1999
(2,406,900 kilograms in 1998 to 1,166,040 kilograms in 1999). Exports of colored
flexographic inks increased by 16% from 8,342,930 kilograms in 1998 to 9,671,620
kilograms in 1999.
The United States imports printing inks from Japan, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom, and Mexico. In 1998 the United States imported 20 million kilograms
of printing inks, including 638,660 kilograms of black flexographic ink (NAPIM, 1999).
In 1999, however, imports of black ink fell by more than 50% to 301,770 kilograms.
Imports of other colors of flexographic inks also fell by 25%, from 2,521,000 kilograms
in 1998 to 1,893,370 kilograms in 1999.3s
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-18
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
2.3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
This section describes federal environmental, health, and safety regulations that may affect
the use of flexographic printing chemicals and inks. Regulatory requirements have
significant effects on costs, equipment requirements, overhead, and owner/operator
liability.
Flexographic printers may be subject to some of the following federal laws:
• Clean Air Act (CAA)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)
Federal environmental laws often provide for implementation by federally approved,
authorized, or delegated state or local agency programs. These programs must be at least
as stringent as the federal programs, and may be more stringent. There may also be
additional state or local requirements that have no federal counterpart. This summary
discusses only federal laws, and only covers ink chemicals referenced in this CTSA.
Therefore, readers should be aware of state and local regulations, and requirements
associated with chemicals not used in this CTSA. Also, this section only discusses
regulations applicable to the flexographic printing process; other activities undertaken in
a printing facility (such as prepress processes) may involve other requirements. A list of
additional sources for regulatory information can be found in the box at the end of this
section.
Clean Air Act
Air regulations represent the major environmental challenge for flexographic printers. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) and amendments were established to protect and improve air quality
and reduce damage to human health and the environment by air pollutants.
Three components of the Clean Air Act are particularly relevant to printers: the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), and permitting.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set maximum concentration limits
for six air pollutants. The most relevant to printers is ozone, which is the principal
component of smog and is created in part by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released
from inks. Each state must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies
sources of pollution for these six pollutants and determines what reductions are required
to meet the NAAQS. If the region violates the standard for ozone, it is classified as a
nonattainment area. Depending on the degree of nonattainment, specific pollution
controls, such as those described in the Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs), may be
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-19
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
mandated for sources with potentially uncontrolled VOC emissions. The three basic control
guidelines developed for flexographic and gravure printing are the following:
• Use of add-on controls such as thermal and catalytic oxidizers, carbon absorption,
or solvent recovery, with a reduction rate of 60%.
• Use of water-based inks that contain at least 75 % by volume water and at most
25% by volume organic solvents.
• Use of high-solids inks that have a solvent content of no more than 40% by
volume.
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
EPA has promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) for the printing and publishing industry. (These cover wide-web flexography
and rotogravure.) Section 112 of.the CAA requires EPA to establish NESHAPs for all
major source categories of stationary sources that emit any of the 188 Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) listed in the CAA. HAPs are listed for regulation because they present,
or may present, a threat of adverse human health effects or adverse environmental effects!
The CAA defines major sources as those that emit, or have the potential to emit, 10 tons
per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs.
NESHAPs require regulated sources to meet emission standards which represent the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions that EPA determines is achievable for sources
hi the category. Such standards are known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standards or MACT. In addition to meeting the emission standard, the source must
maintain records, file reports, and correctly install, use, and maintain monitoring
equipment.
Each affected wide-web flexographic printing facility must limit monthly HAP emissions
to one of the following measures:
• five percent of the organic3 HAPs
• four percent of the mass of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents,
reducers, thinners, and other materials
• twenty percent of the mass of solids, or
• a calculated equivalent allowable mass based on the organic HAPs and solids
contents of the inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers,
thinners, and other materials
These limits can be achieved by substituting non-toxic chemicals for organic HAPs,
installing traditional emissions capture and control equipment, or implementing some
combination of these two compliance options.
Five HAPs are found in the inks used for this CTSA, and are listed in Table 2.6.
Additionally, Section 112(r) of the CAA lists chemicals that are acutely toxic or
flammable. If a CAA 112(r) chemical is held in a process in a quantity above the
applicable threshold level, the facility must establish a Risk Management Program to avoid
the accidental release of the chemical. One chemical used hi this CTSA, ammonia, is
regulated under CAA 112(r), with a threshold of 10,000 (or 20,000 pounds in the case of
ammonia hydroxide).
1 Organic HAPs are a subset of VOCs that excludes certain inorganic compounds.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAF1
2-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Permitting
Printers may be required to obtain two types of permits related to air emissions:
construction and operating. Construction permits are issued by state or local agencies;
they are required when building a new facility, and may be required when installing new
equipment such as a printing press. It may be necessary to obtain a construction permit
before beginning pre-construction activities such as moving existing equipment, pouring
concrete, or making arrangements for utility connections.
Many printers also are required to obtain operating permits. One kind of operating permit
is that issued by state or local agencies. They may contain enforceable operating
conditions and control requirements, as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Under Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, major sources are required to
obtain a Title V operating permit. Major sources are facilities that have the potential to
emit 10 tons per year or more of any individual HAP, 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of HAPs, or 100 tons per year or more of any air pollutant classified as a
VOC. The thresholds are lower for facilities in ozone nonattainment areas. Permit
applications include a period of review by the public, neighboring states, and EPA. Permit
requirements include emissions monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and all of a
facility's other CAA requirements.
Under certain conditions, an alternative to Title V permits may be available. These
Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits (FESOPs) limit emissions from a facility
to below the Title V thresholds. FESOPs are generally less complicated than Title V
permits and are issued by states but can be enforced by EPA.
Table 2.6 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under CAA
Chemical
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Risk Management Plan
Ammonia3
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Styrene
In concentrations greater than 20%.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management of
hazardous waste. Hazardous waste can be identified as characteristic (ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, or toxic) or as a specific listed waste (e.g., certain spent solvents, such as
toluene). (See Section2.4, Process Safety Assessment, for an explanation of characteristic
wastes.) The major solvents used by flexographic printers are categorized as ignitable.
Hazardous wastes must be treated, stored, and disposed of only by approved methods, and
require strict recordkeeping.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-21
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
RCRA hazardous wastes are categorized by codes. Characteristic wastes are indicated by
a "D" code. There are four categories of listed hazardous wastes, two of which are most
relevant to the printing industry:
• The F list designates particular wastes from certain common industrial or
manufacturing processes. They are wastes from non-specific sources, because
processes producing these wastes can occur in different industries. This list
includes certain spent solvents.
• The U list includes hazardous pure or commercial grade formulations of certain
specific unused chemicals. These wastes include product that has been
accidentally spilled or cannot be used because it does not meet specifications.
Some chemicals appear under multiple lists, depending on their use; for example, ethyl
acetate is associated with waste codes U112 (as a product waste) and F003 (as a spent
solvent waste). Table 2.7 lists chemicals used in this CTSA that may be regulated under
RCRA.
Table 2.7 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under RCRA
Chemical
D Waste Code" F Waste Code U Waste Code
Barium D005
Ethyl acetate D001
Ignitable solvent-based inks D001
Isobutanol D001
F003
F005
U112
U140
•Characteristic wastes (D code) are regulated as hazardous wastes when they exhibit the
characteristic (e.g., ignitabie if the flashpoint is below 140°F) or contain the toxic constituent at
levels above the level of regulatory concern.
Hazardous waste generators are subject to one of three sets of requirements, depending on
the volume of hazardous waste generated:
• Large Quantity Generators (LQG) generate greater than 1000 kg (approximately
2200 Ibs) of hazardous waste per month or greater than 1 kg (2.2 Ibs) of acutely
hazardous waste per month.
• Small Quantity Generators (SQG) generate between 100 kg (approx. 220 Ibs.) and
1000 kg (approx. 2200 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month and less than 1 kg of
acutely hazardous waste per month.
• Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) generate no more than
100 kg (approx. 220 Ibs.) of hazardous waste per month and less than 1 kg (2.2
Ibs.) of acutely hazardous waste per month.
CESQG requirements include hazardous waste identification, waste counting to determine
generator status, maximum quantity limits, and a requirement to treat or dispose of waste
on-site or at specified off-site facilities. SQG and LQG requirements also include storage
unit specifications, personnel training, recprdkeeping, and contingency plans. See table
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
2.8 for more information on the requirements for each generator status level. The
substitution of materials that do not result in hazardous waste generation can reduce or
eliminate RCRA requirements.
Table 2.8 Requirements for RCRA Generators
Requirement
EPA ID Number
On-site
Accumulation
Quantity
Accumulation
Time Limits
Storage
Requirements
Off-site
Management of
Wastes
Manifest
Biennial Report
Personnel
Training
Contingency
Plan
Emergency
Procedures
Transport
Requirements
CESQG
Not Required
* 1,000 kg (-2,200
Ibs.); ^ kg (2.2 Ibs.)
acute; 100 kg (-220
Ibs.) acute spill
residue
None
None
State approved or
RCRA
permitted/interim
status facility
Not Required
Not Required
Not Required
Not Required
Not Required
Yes [if required by
U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT)]
SQG
Required
<;6,000 kg (-13,200
Ibs.)
<;180daysor<;270
days (if >200 miles)
Basic requirements
with technical
standards for tanks
or containers
RCRA
permitted/interim
status facility
Required
Not Required
Basic Training
Required
Basic Plan
Required
Yes
LOG
Required
No Limit
<;90 days
Full compliance
for management
of tanks,
containers, drip
pads, or
containment
buildings
RCRA
permitted/interim
status facility
Required
Required
Required
Full Plan
Required
Required
Yes
Source: U.S. EPA, RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module: Introduction to Generators,
1999.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-23
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 1976 and subsequently amended,
gives EPA a broad mandate to protect health and the environment from unreasonable
chemical risks, to gather information, to identify harmful substances, and to control those
substances whose risks outweigh their benefits to society and the economy. TSCA
provides EPA the authority to regulate activities conducted by manufacturers, importers,
processors, distributors, users, and disposers of chemical substances or mixtures. The
major sections of interest to flexographic ink formulators and printers are described below.
Section 4
Section 4 authorizes EPA to require testing of certain chemical substances or mixtures
identified as risks to determine their effects on human health or the environment. The
TSCA Master Testing List is a list of chemical substances for priority testing
consideration. Its major purposes are to 1) identify regulatory and voluntary chemical
testing needs, 2) focus limited EPA resources on those chemicals with the highest priority
testing needs, 3) publicize EPA's testing priorities for industrial chemicals, 4) obtain broad
public comments on EPA's testing program and priorities, and 5) encourage initiatives by
industry to help EPA meet those priority needs.
Section 5
Section 5 requires manufacturers and importers of new chemical substances (substances
not previously listed on the TSCA Inventory) to submit a Premanufacrure Notice to EPA
90 days prior to nonexempt commercial manufacture or import. Similar reporting is
required for those existing chemical substances (substances listed on the TSCA Inventory)
for which certain activities have been designated as a "significant new use." Upon
reviewing these notices, EPA may 1) issue an order or rule regulating the manufacture,
use, or disposal of the substance, 2) require a manufacturer, importer, or processor of the
new chemical or a chemical for a significant new use to develop test data, and/or 3)
promulgate a rule identifying significant new uses of the substance.
Section 5 and Acrylate Esters
A Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) was proposed for acrylate esters, which are found in
some flexographic ink formulations. However, EPA withdrew the proposed SNUR after
receiving, under the terms of a voluntary agreement, toxicity data from acrylate
manufacturers that determined that neither triethylene glycol diacrylate nortriethylene glycol
dimethacrylate were considered carcinogenic. As a result, EPA no longer supports the
carcinogen concern for acrylates as a class. However, EPA may still regulate and maintain
health concerns for certain acrylates on a "case-by-case" basis when they are structurally
similar to substances for which EPA has supporting toxicity data or when there are
mechanistic/toxicity data supporting the concern. Data from experimental studies show some
acrylates can cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and
developmental effects, and respiratory sensitization. For dermal exposure, EPA continues
to recommend the use of protective equipment, such as impervious gloves and protective
clothing, for workers exposed to new or existing acrylates and methacrylates. For inhalation
exposure, NIOSH-approved respirators or engineering controls to reduce or eliminate
workplace exposures should be used. EPA continues to evaluate the acrylate chemical
Icategory for ecotoxicity.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-24
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Section 6
Section 6 provides EPA with the authority to regulate the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use and disposal of chemical substances or mixtures determined
to pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. EPA may prohibit or limit the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a substance.
Action can range from a complete ban to a labeling requirement.
Section 8
Under section 8(a) of TSCA, EPA has promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 712,
subpart B (the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)), which established
procedures for chemical manufacturers and importers to report production, use, and
exposure-related information on listed chemical substances. Any person (except a "small
manufacturer or importer") who imports or manufactures chemicals identified by EPA in
this rule must report information on production volume, environmental releases, and
certain other releases. Small manufacturers, or importers may be required to report such
information on some chemicals. TSCA section 8(a) affects large ink manufacturers with
total annual sales from all sites owned or controlled by the domestic or foreign parent
company at or above $30 million for the reporting period, and who produce or import.
45,400 kilograms (100,000 pounds) or more of the chemical (see 40 CFR 712.25(c)).
Sections 8(a) and (b) and the implementing regulations, 40 CFR part 710, require EPA to
compile, maintain and publish a list of all chemical substances manufactured in, imported
into, or processed in the United States (the TSCA Inventory). Certain chemical
manufacturers and importers are required to regularly report additional information
necessary to allow EPA to maintain the inventory (TSCA Inventory Update Rule).
Under EPA's section 8(c) regulations at 40 CFR part 717, manufacturers, importers and
processors must maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the
environment for which certain allegations of harm have been made by plant personnel,
consumers, or the surrounding community. See 40 CFR 717.5 to determine if these
requirements apply to flexographic printing industry chemicals. A word of caution: an
allegation may be of such a serious nature as to be considered an 8(e) notification.
Under section 8(d) of TSCA, EPA has promulgated regulations that require any person
who manufactures, imports, or, in some cases, processes (or proposes to manufacture,
import, or, in some cases, process) a chemical substance or mixture identified under 40
CFR part 716 must submit to EPA copies of unpublished health and safety studies with
respect to that substance or mixture.
Section 8(e) provides, that any person who 1) manufactures, imports, processes or
distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture, and 2) obtains information which
reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial
risk of injury to health or the environment must immediately report that information to
EPA.unless the person has actual knowledge that EPA has been adequately informed of
such information.
Section 12
Section 12 requires exporters of certain chemical substances or mixtures to notify EPA
about these exports and EPA, in turn, must notify the relevant foreign governments.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-25
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Section 13
Section 13 requires importers of a chemical shipment to certify at the port of entry to the
U.S. that either 1) the shipment is subject to TSCA and complies with all applicable rules
and orders thereunder, or 2) the shipment is not subject to TSCA.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-26
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
The Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative and the High Production Volume Challenge Program
he Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative was launched in 1998 in response to studies by the Environmental
Defense Fund, the American Chemistry Council, and EPA that found that most commercial chemicals have
ery little, if any, toxicity information on which to make sound judgements about potential risks. Three key
omponents of the RTK Initiative are to:
• complete baseline testing on the most widely used commercial chemicals
• conduct extensive testing on chemicals to which children are disproportionately exposed
• collect TRI release information on high-priority PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic) chemicals
'he ultimate goal of the RTK Initiative is to make this information publicly available so that the public can
make informed choices and decisions about their health and local environment.
EPA challenged industry to voluntarily undertake testing on 2,800 HPV (high production volume) chemical
or which baseline data are not available. HPV chemicals were defined as those manufactured in, or
mported into, the US in amounts equal to or exceeding 1 million pounds per year (based on 1990 Inventory
Update Rule data). Many of the HPV chemicals have been sponsored by industry, and EPA hopes to have
all HPV testing completed by 2004. The following chemicals in the Flexo CTSA are in the HPV challenge
Table 2.9 Chemicals in the High Production Volume Challenge Program
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
C.I. Pigment Blue 15
C.I. Pigment Blue 61
C.I. Pigment Green 7
C.I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt
C.I. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt
C.I. Pigment Yellow 14
Citric acid
D&C Red No. 7
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dioctyl sulfosuccinate, sodium salt
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Distillates, (petroleum), hydrotreated light
Distillates, (petroleum), solvent-refined
light paraffinic
Erucamide
Ethanol
Ethanolamine
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitol
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
1,6 Hexanediol acrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Paraffin wax
Polyethylene glycol
Propanol
Propyl acetate
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol propyl ether
Resin acids, hydrogenated, methyl esters
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light
aliphatic
Styrene
Tetramethyldecyndiol
Titanium isopropoxide
Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
Trimethyolpropane triacrylate
Urea
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-27
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.10 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under TSCA
Chemical Name
Ammonia
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dipropylene glycol
methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitol
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl
phosphate
n-Heptane
1,6-Hexanediol
diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl
acrylate
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Propylene glycol
methyl ether
Silicons oil
Styrene
Urea
Section 4 Section 8(a) Section 8(d) Section 12(b)
PAIR
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of
surface waters (e.g., lakes or rivers) in the United States. The CWA regulates wastewater
discharged directly into surface waters or into municipal sewer systems. Most printers
discharge wastewater to municipal sewer systems, which also are known as Publicly
Operated Treatment Works (POTWs).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
Discharges of wastewater from point sources directly into a navigable water body are
regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-28
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPH1C PRINTING
(CWA §402). This program applies to commercial and industrial facilities, as well as to
POTWs. This program requires affected facilities to apply for a NPDES permit that is
issued either by EPA or an authorized state agency.
The permits issued under NPDES contain industry-specific, technology-based, and water
quality-based limitations on wastewater effluent. Generally, all facilities must meet
limitations reflecting the best available control technology, regardless of the quality of
receiving waters. Additionally, water quality-based limitations may also be required
depending on the classification of the waters to which the effluent is discharged. For
example, state and locally mandated water quality criteria may be designated to protect
surface waters for aquatic life and recreation. In addition, NPDES permits specify the
pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements for each regulated facility.
In addition, a storm water permit may be required if storm water is released to waters of
the United States or to a municipal separate storm sewer system. In states in which EPA
is the NPDES permitting authority, printers are eligible for the Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP). In states where state agencies are authorized to execute NPDES
permitting, requirements may be different or more stringent. A MSGP application
requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes site maps
showing drainage and outfall locations, an inventory of exposed materials, and pollution
prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs). At least two days prior to the
commencement of industrial activity, the facility would submit a Notice of Intent (NOI).
Compliance with the MSGP may require visual examinations and analytical and
compliance monitoring. If contaminated storm water is (or is planned to be) dischaged to
a POTW, the POTW must be notified and permission to discharge obtained.
Printing facilities may be eligible for a conditional no exposure exclusion from storm water
permitting. The exclusion is applicable if "all industrial materials and activities are
protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or
runoff," the facility operator submits a written No Exposure Certification form, and the
operator allows the permitting authority to inspect the facility and make inspection reports
publicly available upon request.
Wastewater Discharges to POTW
Printing facilities that discharge or otherwise introduce their wastewater to POTWs are not
required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
However, such facilities may be required to comply with regional and local discharge
requirements and federal or local pretreatment standards, and obtain local permits. Such
requirements are established by the local and regional sewerage authorities to prevent
significant interference with the POTW. Certain requirements also prevent the pass-
through of hazardous, toxic, or other wastes not removed by available treatment methods.
A POTW may require commercial and industrial customers, including printers, to monitor
wastewater, keep records, and notify the POTW of certain discharges.
A national pretreatment program (CWA §307(b)) regulates the introduction of pollutants
to POTWs by industrial users. Pretreatment standards include general prohibitions and
categorical industry standards (implemented on a nationwide basis), as well as local limits.
General prohibitions involve pollutants that may not be introduced by any POTW users.
These include the following materials:
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-29
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
• Pollutants that cause a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW
• Pollutants that will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW
• Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in
the POTW
• Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc) released in a
discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration that will cause interference
with the POTW
• Heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the POTW
• Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause interference or pass-through
• Pollutants that result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors' or fumes within the
POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems
• Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated bv the
POTW.
No categorical pretreatment standards have been established for the printing industry.
However, POTWs may establish local limits for customers.
Listed Chemicals
CTSA chemicals specifically regulated under the CWA (Table 2.11) are included in one
of the following categories:
• Hazardous substances that are listed under Section 311 of the CWA have
Reportable Quantity (RQ) thresholds; should a release of such a chemical occur
abpve the threshold (or the effluent limitation established in a facility's NPDES or
POTW permit), notice must be made to the federal government of the discharge.
Four chemicals found in the inks used in this CTSA are hazardous substances.
• Priority Pollutants are 126 chemicals that must be tested for as a requirement of
NPDES permits. One priority pollutant — surfactants (e.g., ethlyene glycol
ethers) — is found in the inks used in this CTSA.
Table 2.11 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under CWA
Chemical
Hazardous
Substance RQ
(Ibs.)
Priority Pollutant
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Butyl acetate
Styrene
Surfactants (e.g., ethy!ene glycol ethers)
100
1000
5000
1000
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-30
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXQGRAPH1C PRINTING
Safe Drinking Water Act
The goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is to ensure that drinking water is safe
for the public. Under the SDWA, EPA has established national primary drinking water
regulations. The primary regulations set maximum concentrations for substances found
in drinking water that can adversely affect human health. Flexographic chemicals that may
be regulated by SDWA include barium and styrene.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, or more commonly known as Superfund) was enacted in 1980. CERCLA is
the Act that created the Superfund hazardous substance cleanup program and set up a
variety of mechanisms to address risks to public health, welfare, and the environment
caused by hazardous substance releases.
Two important components of CERCLA are the (1) hazardous substance release
notification requirements, and (2) establishment of the parties that are liable for response
costs for removal or remediation of a release. Substances defined as hazardous under
CERCLA are listed in 40 CFR 302.4. Under CERCLA and other acts, EPA has assigned
a Reportable Quantity (RQ) to most hazardous substances; regulatory RQs are either 1,10,
100 1000, or 5000 pounds (except for radionuclides). If a release greater than the RQ
occurs, a person in charge of the facility must immediately notify the National Response
Center'to help EPA identify sites that potentially warrant a response action. If EPA has
not assigned an RQ to a hazardous substance, typically its RQ is one pound. Eight
chemicals used in this CTSA have RQs, and are provided in Table 2.12.
Chemical
Table 2.12 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under CERCLA
RQdbs.)
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitoP
Dicyclohexyl phthalateb
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitoP
Isobutanol
Styrene
100
1000
5000
5000"
•
5000
1000
J This chemical is part of the glycol ethers broad category; a reportable quarrtjy te not listed.
" This chemical is part of the phthalate esters broad category; a reportable quantity is not listed.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-31
September 20(
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) as
part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Three provisions
of EPCRA may be of concern for printers: emergency notification, community right to
know reporting, and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
EPCRA Section 302 defines and regulates certain extremely hazardous substances. If
quantities of these chemicals at a facility exceed the threshold planning quantities, the
facility must notify the state and local emergency planning committees. These chemicals
are also regulated by EPCRA Section 304, which requires facilities to report releases in
excess of reportable quantities to the same state and local authorities, and to the local fire
department. One chemical used in this CTSA, ammonia, is listed as an extremely
hazardous substance (EHS). EPCRA 304 also requires facilities to notify the state and
local authorities of release of CERCLA.1 hazardous substances so that state and local
governments and citizens can be informed of potential hazards.
EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 require facilities to report inventory information on the
hazardous chemicals present on-site. Facilities are regulated under these provisions if they
are regulated under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and exceed established
thresholds for hazardous chemicals as defined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(c) at any one time.
Facilities using hazardous chemicals must submit reports containing information on each
hazardous chemical's identity, physical and health hazards, and location to state and local
emergency planning committees and the local fire department. Reporting thresholds are
10,000 pounds for a compound that is not classified as an EHS, and 500 pounds or the
chemical's threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is lower, for an EHS. The EHS
used in the CTSA, ammonia, has a reporting threshold of 500 pounds.
Under EPCRA Section 313, a facility in a covered SIC code (of which printing is one)
that has 10 or more full-time employees or the equivalent, and that manufactures^
processes, or otherwise uses a toxic chemical listed in 40 CFR Section 372.65 above the
applicable reporting threshold, must either file a toxic chemical release inventory (TRI)
reporting form (EPA Form R), or if applicable, an annual certification statement (EPA
Form A). The Form R details a facility's release and other waste management activities
of these listed toxic chemicals, including those releases specifically allowed by EPA or
state permits. Except for the specific exemptions listed in 40 CFR372.45(d), printers
should be aware that suppliers of products containing TRI chemicals above certain de
minimis (minimum) concentrations are required to notify each customer (to whom the
mixture or trade name product is sold or otherwise distributed from the facility) of the
name of each listed toxic chemical and the percent by weight of each toxic chemical in the
mixture or trade name product. Table 2.13 lists the six chemicals used in this CTSA that
must be reported to TRI when annual use exceeds the TRI thresholds. The annual
reporting thresholds for these chemicals, none of which are EPCRA Section 313 persistent
bioaccumlative toxins (PBTs),a are -25,000 pounds for manufacture and process, and
10,000 pounds for otherwise use.
Recently promulgated rules lowered the reporting thresholds for compounds that are persistent, bioaccumlative
toxins in the environment. Information can be obtained by contacting the RCRA, Superfund, and EPCRA Hotline
at the number and website listed at the end of this section.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.13 CTSA Chemicals Regulated Under EPCRA
Chemical
EPCRA 302
Extremely Hazardous
Substances
EPCRA 313
TRI Chemicals
Ammonia
Barium
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Isopropanol"
Styrene
"Includes anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia from water dissociable ammonium salts
and other sources; 10% of total aqueous ammonia is reportable.
"Processors and users of isopropanol are not required to report it. It is reportable by
manufacturers using the strong acid process.
Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established to reduce
occupational health hazards. OSHA regulations outline the educational and informational
resources that a printer must utilize to assure the safe use of chemicals and the health of
employees, including the following basic requirements:
• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for certain hazardous chemicals must be
provided by suppliers and maintained in-house for use by employees. For
chemicals stored and used in amounts in excess of threshold levels, copies of
MSDSs must be submitted to state and local emergency planning agencies and the
local fire department.
• If a chemical is claimed to be proprietary, the appropriate information must be
supplied to the designated health official.
• All containers must be properly labeled.
• A Job Safety and Health Protection workplace poster that indicates employee
rights and responsibilities must be posted in a prominent place.
• A safety training program must be developed, and all employees must be trained.
• Facilities must submit an annual report indicating the aggregate amount of
chemicals (above threshold quantities) used at their facilities, classified by hazard
category.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) also requires the use of personal
protection equipment (PPE) for specific situations. These may involve the use of gloves
and goggles when working with certain solvents and inks. Other requirements relevant
to printers include the installation of emergency eye wash stations in areas where eye
irritants are used, and the development of a hearing conservation program if noise levels
are equal to or exceed an eight-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels.
OSHA lockout/tagout regulations require the control of energy to equipment during
servicing and maintenance. To prevent a machine from unexpectedly energizing, a facility
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-33
September
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
must develop a plan to ensure that the energy source of a machine is locked out (with a
locking device) or tagged out (with a prominent sign and fastener) when servicing or
maintenance is being performed. For routine servicing (such as minor cleaning), printers
may use effective alternative protection such as the "inch-safe-service" method which
allows energization of the press to inch it forward for servicing purposes as long as, at a
minimum, a stop/safe/ready function is available at designated control stations and other
requirements are followed.
The OSH Act also governs the exposure of workers to chemicals in the workplace. OSHA
has established permissible exposure limits (PELs) for air contaminants, which are
regulatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air (29 CFR
1910.1000 Subpart Z) based on an 8-hour time weighted average. (PELs also may have
a skin designation.) Other chemical exposure concentrations potentially used for
regulation by OSHA include ceiling limits and short term exposure limits.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-34
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.14 Flexography Federal Regulations Chemical Worksheet
Regulation
Affected Chemicals
Clean Air Act (CAA)
112(b) Hazardous Air Pollutant
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Styrene
112(r) Risk Management Plan
Ammonia (in concentrations greater than 20%)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Characteristic Wastes (D Wastes)
Barium (D005)
Ethyl acetate (D001)
Ignitable solvent-based inks (D001)
Isobutanol(DOOI)
Any other waste that exhibits ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity as defined by
RCRA
Non-specific Source Wastes (F Wastes)
Ethyl acetate (F003)
Isobutanol (F005)
Specific Unused Chemicals (U Wastes)
Ethylacetate(U112)
Isobutanol (U140)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 4
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Section 8(a) PAIR
Ammonia
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitol
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
1,6 Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Silicone oil
Styrene
Urea
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-35
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.14 Flexography Federal Regulations Chemical Worksheet (continued)
Regulation
Affected Chemicals
Section 8(d)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl carbitol
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Silicone oil
Section 12(b)
Butyl acetate
Butyl carbitol
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethyl acetate
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Hazardous Substances
(Reportable Quantities)
Ammonia (100 Ibs.)
Ammonium hydroxide (1000 Ibs.)
Butyl acetate (5000 Ibs.)
Styrene (1000 Ibs.)
Priority Pollutants
Surfactants
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
Barium
Styrene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Reportable Quantities (RQs)
Ammonia (100 Ibs.)
Ammonium hydroxide (1000 Ibs.)
Butyl acetate (5000 Ibs.)
Butyl carbitol (RQ not listed)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate (RQ not listed)
Ethyl acetate (5000 Ibs.)
Ethyl carbitol (RQ not listed)
Isobutanol (5000 Ibs.)
Styrene (1000 Ibs.)
>UBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-36
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPH1C PRINTING
Table 2.14 Flexography Federal Regulations Chemical Worksheet (continued)
Regulation
Affected Chemicals
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Extremely Hazardous Substances
Ammonia
TRI Chemicals
Ammonia (10% of total aqueous ammonia)
Barium
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Isopropanol
Styrene
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Personal Exposure Limits (PELs)
Ammonia
Barium
2-Butoxyethanol
Butyl acetate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Ethanol
Ethanolamine
Ethyl acetate
n-Heptane
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Kaolin
Propanol
Propyl acetate
Styrene
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-37
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Additional Information on Printing-Related Regulations
I GENERAL INFORMATION ! ~ ~ "——
i
i >.
[Printers' National Environmental Assistance Center (PNEAC)
IA website with links to compliance assistance and pollution prevention information and state-specific
I requirements r
Website: www.pneac.org
Federal Environmental Regulations Potentially Affecting the Commercial Printing Industry (1994)
A short booklet that describes important points about the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act RCRA etc
and how the printing industry is affected by each. Available from The Pollution Prevention Clearinghouse
Ask for Document EPA 744-B-94-001.
Telephone: 202-260-1023
Website: www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/libppic.htm
Government Printing Office (GPO)
The GPO website provides links to the full text of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Federal Register
notices for the past several years, and other resources!
Website: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLEAN AIR ACT
The Clean Air Technology Center (CATC)
j A source of general information on air emissions-related technology.
Telephone: 919-541-0800
Website: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc
INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline offers information and publications that are relevant to RCRA
Telephone:800-424-9346 --..-.
Website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
i
\RCRA in Focus: Printing
| A short booklet that provides an overview of the federal regulations that the printing industry is required
(to follow and lists the printing industry wastes that are likely to be hazardous. Available from the RCRA
SSuperfund & EPCRA Hotline. Ask for Document EPA 530-,K-97-007.
t .
' Understanding the Hazardous Waste Rules: A Handbook for Small Businesses, 1996 Update
A maiiURl that is targeted to small quantity generators of hazardous wastes. The manual helps small
businesses determine whether they generate hazardous waste and provides comprehensive information on
Ihow to comply with the federal hazardous waste regulations for small quantity generators Available from
(the RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline. Ask for Document EPA 530-K-95-001
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-38
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
The TSCA Assistance Information Service (TSCA hotline) can provide information TSCA.
Telephone: 202-554-1404'
Website: www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The Office of Water
The Office of Water, especially the Office of Wastewater Management, can be contacted for information
on Clean Water Act provisions that relate to the printing industry.
Telephone: 202-260-5700
Website: www.epa.gov/OW
INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Hotline can provide information on issues related to the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Telephone: 800-426-4791
Website: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/
INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
The RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline offers information and publications that are relevant to
CERCLA.
Telephone: 800-424-9346
Website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline -
The Superfund Website provides general information on CERCLA.
Website: www.epa.gov/superfund
INFORMATION ABOUT THE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
The Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office website
Website offers information on the emergency response aspects of EPCRA, which are administered under
the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office.
Website: www.epa.gov/swercepp/
The Toxics Release Inventory website
Provides information on the Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements, which are implemented by
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ,
Website: www. epa. gov/opptintr/tri/index.html
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-39
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
The RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline offers information and publications that are relevant to
EPCRA.
Telephone:800-424-9346
Website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
INFORMATION ABOUT THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website
Provides information on the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA regulations, standards,
interpretations, and other information.
Website: www.osha.gov/
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Information Center provides
information about transporting hazardous materials.
Telephone: 800-467-4922
Website: http://hazmat.dot.gov/
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-40
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
2.4 PROCESS SAFETY
Procedures for safely preparing, operating, and cleaning press equipment help to avoid
serious injuries and health problems to employees. An effective process safety program
identifies workplace hazards and seeks to eliminate or reduce their potential for harm.
Chemicals used in the flexographic printing process present safety hazards to workers and
the facility; therefore they must be handled and stored properly using appropriate personal
protective equipment and safe operating practices.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) have established safety standards and regulations to assist employers in creating
a safe working environment and protect workers from potential workplace hazards. In
addition, individual states may also have safety standards regulating chemical and physical
workplace hazards for many industries. Federal safety standards and regulations affecting
the flexographic printing industry can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 29, Part 1910 and are available by contacting the local OSHA field office. State and
local regulations are available from the appropriate state office.
Reactivity, Flammabflity, Ignitability, and Corrosivity of Flexographic Ink Chemicals
Table 2.15 lists four safety hazard factors for the nine ink product lines that were tested
in the performance demonstrations, and Table 2.16 summarizes the safety hazards by ink
system. (Where available, the reactivity and flammability values were extracted directly
from Section One of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), which contains the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) values for these factors.) Printers should be aware
of the safety hazards for all chemicals used and stored hi a facility, should post the relevant
MSDSs as required, and should consider whether ink products with lower safety ratings
are available and suitable.
For reactivity, NFPA ranks materials on a scale from 0 to 4, with 0 being the safest:
0 — materials that are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and that
do not react with water; normal fire fighting procedures may be used.
1 — materials that are normally stable but may become unstable at elevated
temperatures and pressures, as well as materials that will react (but not violently) with
water, releasing some energy; fires involving these materials should be approached with
caution.
2 — materials that are normally unstable and readily undergo violent chemical change,
but are not capable of detonation; this includes materials that can rapidly release
energy, materials that can undergo violent chemical changes at high temperatures and
pressures, and materials that react violently with water. In advanced or massive fires
involving these materials, fire fighting should be done from a safe distance from a
protected location.
3 - materials that, in themselves, are capable of detonation, explosive decomposition,
or explosive reaction, but require a strong initiating source or heating under
confinement; fires involving these materials should be fought from a protected location.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-41
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
4 - materials that, in themselves, are readily capable of detonation, explosive
decomposition, or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. If a
material having this Reactivity Hazard Rating is involved in a fire, the area should be
immediately evacuated.
For the CTSA inks, all inks except the UV product lines were rated as completely non-
reactive. One UV product line was given a rating of 1, and the others did not have a
rating.
For flammability, NFPA ranks materials also on a scale from 0 to 4, with 0 being the
safest:
0 — materials that will not burn.
1 — materials that must be preheated before ignition will occur and whose flash point
exceeds 200 °F (93.4 °C), as well as most ordinary combustible materials.
2 — materials that must be moderately heated before ignition will occur and that readily
give off ignitible vapors.
3 -flammable liquids and materials that can be easily ignited under almost all normal
temperature conditions; water may be ineffective in controlling or extinguishing fires
in such materials.
4 - flammable gases, pyrophoric-liquids, and flammable liquids. The preferred
method of fire attack is to stop the flow of material or to protect exposures while
allowing the fire to burn itself out.
Flammability ratings for the CTSA ink product lines ranged widely. Both solvent-based
inks were rated at 3, and water-based inks received ratings ranging from 0 to 3. One UV
product line was given a rating of 1, but the others were unrated.
For ignitability, the inks are classified as either ignitable (y) or not ignitable (n).
Ignitability is based on the flash point of the ink product line, which is the lowest
temperature at which it can be ignited. A chemical is considered ignitable if it is a liquid,
other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24% alcohol by volume and has a flash
point less than 60°C (140 °F).39 For the CTSA product lines, only the two solvent-based
inks were rated as ignitable.
For corrosiveness, the inks are classified as either corrosive (y) or not corrosive (n)
Corrosiveness was determined based on the pH of the product.40 A chemical is corrosive
if it is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5. This
information was not available for any product lines except one, which was rated as non-
corrosive.
»UBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-42
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Table 2.15 Safety Hazard Factors for CTSA Ink Product Lines3
Product line
Solvent-based #S1
Solvent-based #S2
Water-based #W1
Water-based #W2
Water-based #W3
Water-based #W4
UV-cured #U1
UV-cured #U2
UV-cured #U3
Formulation
(Color)
All
All
Blue, green
White, cyan
Magenta
Blue, green,
white
Cyan, magenta
All
Blue
Green
White
Cyan
Magenta
All
All
All
Reactivity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Flammability
3
3
3
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
3
2
2
3
2
0
3
2
1
Ignitability
y
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Corrosivity
n
a A blank cell indicates that there was not enough information available to develop a safety hazard factor ranking.
For inks that were blended and therefore have more than one MSDS, the ratings for all components in each
formulation are given.
Table 2.16 Summary of Safety Hazard Factors by Ink System
Ink system
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Reactivity
0
0
c
Flammability
3
0-3
d
Ignitability
y
n
n
Corrosiveness
NDa
b
NDa
a No data
b Incomplete data — three formulations of one product line were not corrosive.
0 Incomplete data — all formulations of one product line were given reactivity levels of 1.
d Incomplete data — all formulations of one product line were given flammability levels of 1
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-43
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
The following observations can be noted from the tables:
• All of the solvent- and water-based inks had reactivity levels of zero. One UV-
cured ink (#U2) had a reactivity level of one; the reactivity of other UV-cured inks
was unknown.
• Flammability was more of a concern for some inks than others. All of the solvent-
based inks had flammability levels of three. Some of the water-based inks (Water-
based inks #W2 and #W3) had flammability levels of zero or one. However, some
formulations of Water-based inks #W1 and #W4 had flammability levels of two or
three. The flammability levels for UV-cured ink #U2 was one; the flammability
of the other UV-cured inks were not known.
• Ignitability was a concern primarily for solvent-based inks.
• Although information for corrosiveness was sparse, the water-based inks for which
information was available were listed as not corrosive.
4, Process Safety Concerns
Exposure to chemicals is just one of the safety issues that flexographic printers may have
to deal with during their daily activities. By establishing and following proper safeguards
and practices, printers can benefit in three ways: increased worker safety, lower insurance
rates, and fewer work days missed due to accidents and injuries.
To maintain a safe and efficient workplace, employers and employees need to understand
the importance of establishing safety procedures and using appropriate safeguards. The
most important safety practices include the following:
Training
A critical element of workplace safety and an efficiently running press is a well-educated
workforce. To help achieve this goal, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard requires that all employees be trained in the use
of hazardous chemicals to which they may be exposed. Training may be conducted either
by facility staffer by outside parties who are familiar with the flexography process and the
pertinent safety concerns. The training should be held for each new employee, and all
employees should have retraining when necessary (for example, if new equipment is
installed or new ink types are used) or on a regular schedule. The training program should
explain the types of inks, solvents, cleaning compounds, and other chemicals used, and
precautions for handling or storing them; when and how personal protective equipment
(PPE) should be worn; the need for other safety features such as equipment guards and
their proper use; and how to maintain equipment in good operating condition.
Contingency Plan for Chemical Spills and Emergencies
Most states require manufacturing facilities, including flexographic printing facilities, to
establish a contingency plan in the event of an accidental chemical release. Having a plan
in place can reduce injuries to employees, help protect the community and environment,
and minimize downtime. The plan should include the following:
• a list of chemicals in the facility
• how the chemicals are stored and used
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-44
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
• information on the likely cause, nature, and route of a chemical release
emergency response devices and procedures including alarm systems, evacuation
plans, and arrangements with local hospitals, police, and fire departments
• contact information for the facility emergency coordinators
• emergency equipment information, such as the location of fire extinguishers and
spill control kits.41
Electrical Grounding
Grounding is an important safety precaution when using machinery. When conductive
material, like a steel central impression drum, is not grounded, the conductor may generate
and/or store electricity. Non-conductive or ungrounded conductive materials become
electrostatically charged by friction.42 Static may be generated when the web is
unwinding, when the web leaves the rollers, or by friction from shoes and clothing. Static
is also increased by low humidity.43 Static may result in sparks that can cause explosions
and electrical interference. Proper grounding is the simplest way to control static.
Storing Chemicals
Chemicals that are ignitable or flammable should be labeled accordingly and stored in the
appropriate storage space. Chemicals that are incompatible with other chemicals or that
require special precautions during use should also be appropriately labeled and stored. For
example, solvents and solvent-based inks should be stored in ventilated, explosion-proof
rooms. Since some of the chemicals used in the press room may be flammable, the facility
should be inspected periodically by the local fire marshall to ensure that the chemicals are
stored properly and ventilated, thus reducing the potential for a fire.
Storing Rags and Towels
Rags and towels that are used to wipe up chemicals or clean presses may be considered
hazardous waste by EPA and state and local agencies if they contain specified hazardous
chemicals in sufficient amounts. These towels should be stored and disposed of in
accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. If uncertain about whether or not the
shop's used rags 9r towels require special treatment as hazardous waste, a printer should
contact the state environmental agency or state technical assistance program.
Preventive Worker Behavior
Personal safety considerations are also the responsibility of the worker. Workers should
be discouraged from eating or keeping food near presses or chemicals. Since presses
contain moving parts, workers should also refrain from wearing jewelry or loose clothing
that may become caught in the machinery and cause injury to the worker. In particular,
the wearing of rings or necklaces may lead to injury. Workers with long hair should pull
their hair back or wear a hair net to prevent the hair from getting caught in the machinery.
Material Safety Data Sheets
Since flexographic printing requires the use of a variety of chemicals, it is important that
workers know and follow the correct procedures for handling the chemicals. Much of the
information about the use, disposal, and storage of chemicals may be obtained from the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) provided by the manufacturer for each ink product
line, cleaner, and other chemicals. The MSDS also recommends the appropriate personal
protective equipment for handling a particular chemical. The MSDS for each chemical
used should be placed in an easily accessible location in the vicinity of the press room.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-45
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
OSHA has developed several PPE standards that are applicable to the printing industry.
These standards address general safety requirements (29 CFR Part 1910.132), the use of
eye and face protection (Part 1910.133), head protection (Part 1910.135), foot protection
(Part 1910.136), and hand protection (Part 1910.138). The standards for eye, face, and
hand protection are particularly important for printers who have frequent contact with
chemicals (including solvents, dispersants, surfactants, and inks) that may irritate or harm
the skin and eyes.
In order to prevent or minimize exposure to such chemicals, workers should be trained in
the proper use of personal protective equipment. For many chemicals, appropriate
equipment includes goggles, aprons or other impervious clothing, and gloves. In some
printing facilities with loud presses, hearing protection may be recommended or required.
Equipment Guards
In addition to the use of proper personal protective equipment for all workers, OSHA has
developed safety standards that apply to the actual equipment used in printing facilities.
These machine safety guards are described in 29 CFR Part 1910.212 and are applicable
to all sectors of the printing industry,, including flexography. Barrier guards, two-hand
trip devices, and electrical safety devices are among the safeguards recommended by
OSHA. Safeguards for the normal operation of press equipment are included in the
standards for mechanical power-transmission apparatus (29 CFR Part 1910.219) and
include belts, pulleys, flywheels, gears, chains, sprockets, and shafts.
The National Printing Equipment and Supply Association has available copies of the
American National Standard for Safety Specifications for Printing Press Drive Controls.
These safety recommendations address the design of press drive controls specifically, as
well as safety signaling systems for printing presses. Printers should be familiar with the
safety requirements included in these standards and should contact their local OSHA office
or state technical assistance program for assistance in determining how to comply with
them.
OSHA also has a lockout/tagout standard (29 CFR part 1910.147). This standard is
designed to prevent the accidental start-up of electric machinery during cleaning or
maintenance operations. This standard may pose particular problems for flexographic
printers during minor, routine procedures that require frequent stops (e.g., cleaning the
press or on-press maintenance). For such cases, OSHA has granted an exemption for
minor servicing of machinery provided the equipment has other appropriate safeguards,
such as a stop/safe/ready button which overrides all other controls and is under the
exclusive control of the worker performing the servicing. Such minor servicing of printing
presses has been determined to include clearing jams, minor cleaning, lubricating,
adjusting operations, plate changing tasks, paper webbing, and roll changing. Rigid finger
guards should also extend across the rolls, above and below the area to be cleaned. Proper
training of workers is required under the standard whether lockout/tagout is employed or
not. For further information on the applicability of the OSHA lockout/tagout standard to
printing operations, printers should contact their local OSHA field office.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-46
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
REFERENCES
1. Abt Associates Inc. 1996. Personal communication with Henry Salmaggi, Flexographic Technical
Association. June 26.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. "1997 Economic Census: Manufacturing Industry Series, Commercial
Flexographic Printing," EC97M-3231C, November.
3. Lewis, A. F. 1997. Blue Book Marketing Information Reports: Graphic Arts Industry Analysis by Plant Size,
Equipment, Product Specialties. New York, NY: A.F. Lewis & Co., Inc.
4. Ink World. May/June 1996. "The Flexo Report: Improvements through ink innovations."
5. Ibid.
6. Flexo, December 1998. "1999 Industry Forecasts," p. 32.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Op. cit.
8. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Op. cit.
9. Flexographic Technical Association (FTA). 1985. Third Flexo Plant Survey. Ronkonkoma, NY:
Flexographic Technical Association, Inc.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Op. cit.
II. Ink World. May 1997. "Refining flexography." p. 37.
12. Flexible Packaging Association (FPA). 1998. 1998 State of the Industry Report. Washington, DC: FPA.
13. Flexo. February 1999. "A bright forecast." pp. 32-33.
14. Ink World. May 1999. "The flexo report." p. 32.
15.Flexo. February 1999."FTA corner." p. 67.
16. Ink World. 1996. The Flexo Report: Improvements through ink innovations. May/June.
17. Flexo. February 1999. Op. cit.
18. Flexographic Technical Association (FTA). 1995. Flexography Principles and Practice, 4h ed.
Ronkonkoma, NY: Flexographic Technical Association, Inc.
19. Ink World. July 1997. "Fresh ink." p. 10.
20.Digital Technology Solutions, October 1999. "U.S. printing process by market share, 1997-2015." p. 71.
21. Flexible Packaging Association (FPA). 1998. 1998 State of the Industry Report. Washington, DC: FPA.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-47
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
22. Ibid.
23. Flexo. December 1999. Op. cit.
24. Ink World. May 1997. Op. cit.
25. Fuchs, G., personal communication with Abt Associates Inc., 2000.
26. National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM). 1999. 1999 State of the Industry Report
Hasbrouck, NJ: NAPIM.
27. Ibid.
28.NAPIM, 1999. Op. cit.
29. Flexo, February 1999. Op.cit.
30.Ink World. June 1999. " A look at past, present, and future." p. 48.
31. Ibid.
32. Ink World. May 1999. "Looking for new opportunities." p. 40.
33. Flexo. September 1997. "Product Trend Report: UV Inks and Curing." pp. 46-49.
34. Flexo, February 1999. Op. cit.
35. Flexo, February 1999. Op. cit.
36. Flexo, February 1999. Op. cit.
37. NAPIM, 1999. Op. cit.
38. NAPIM, 1999. Op. cit.
39. 40 CFR (Protection of Environment, RCRA), Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,
§261.21, Characteristic of Ignitability.
40. 40 CFR (Protection of Environment, RCRA), Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,
§261.22, Characteristic of Corrosivity.
41. Flexographic Technical Association (FTA). 1995. Flexography Principles and Practice. Ronkonkoma, NY:
Flexographic Technical Association, Inc.
42. Flexo. August 1996."Static Electricity."
43. Shapiro, Fred. 1997. Correspondence with Abt Associates Inc., including the brochure, "Checklist for the
Flexographic Print Shop" (author unknown).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
2-48
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Chapter 3: Risk
CHAPTER CONTENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO RISK • - 3-4
Background 3-4
Quantitative Expressions of Hazard and Risk 3-5
Definitions of Systemic Toxicity, Developmental Toxicity, and Carcinogenic Effects 3-6
Definition of Aquatic Toxicity 3-8
3.2 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS 3-9
Human Health Hazards 3-9
Ecological Hazards • 3-25
3.3 CATEGORIZATION OF FLEXOGRAPHIC INK CHEMICALS FOR THIS CTSA 3-29
Chemical Categories by Product Line 3-32
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AIR RELEASE ASSESSMENT 3-36
Environmental Air Release Methodology • • • • 3-36
Environmental Air Release Results 3-37
3.5 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 3-40
Occupational Exposure Methodology 3-40
Occupational Exposure Results 3-43
3.6 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 3-46
General Population Exposure Methodology • • 3-46
General Population Exposure Results 3-49
3.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION • 3-52
Occupational Risk Results • '3-5*
General Population Risk Results 3-60
REFERENCES • • • • 3'65
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the hazards, exposures, and associated health and environmental risks that may
result from the chemicals in the solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured ink systems studied in the
CTSA.
INTRODUCTION: Section 3.1 presents an introduction to the central concepts of risk. Common steps of
a risk assessment are described, including hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure
assessment, and risk characterization. Finally, three major types of potential effects of hazardous
substances on living organisms (systemic toxicity, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenic effects) are
described.
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION: Section 3.2 discusses the human and ecological health and ecological hazards
of all the chemicals in the flexographic inks included in this study. The information is based on data found
in published toxicological studies and reports prepared by the EPA Structure Activity Team (SAT). Detailed
information can be found in Appendices 3-A and 3-B. Additionally, some chemicals are regulated under
major federal regulations; information about the applicability of these regulations can be found in Chapter
CHEMICAL CATEGORIES: Section 3.3 describes the chemical categories into which the flexographic ink
chemicals were organized for this CTSA. Subsequent sections of the CTSA discuss these chemical
categories rather than specific chemicals, in order to protect the confidentiality of ink manufacturers
regarding specific ink formulations. This section also identifies the relevant chemical categories for each of
the ink formulations studied.
AIR RELEASES: Section 3.4 presents the environmental air releases that may result from using these
flexographic inks. The results were generated with mass balance calculations.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR WORKERS AND GENERAL POPULATION: Section 3.5 discusses the
)otential dermal and inhalation exposures to workers that can occur as a result of working with these inks.
The exposure assessmentwas performed undertwo modeled scenarios: the ink preparation room (Scenario
1) and the press room (Scenario 2). The results of both scenarios are presented in this section, but only the
results from Scenario 2 are used for the subsequent Risk Characterization. Section 3.6 presents potential
nhalation exposures for the general population.
*!SK CHARACTERIZATION: Lastly, Section 3.7 describes the risk characterization for these flexographic
nks. The risk characterization integrates the hazard and exposure information to arrive at risk estimates to
workers and the exposed general population near to a flexographic facility.
HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS
Jseful information can be gleaned from each section of this chapter. However, when comparing the overall
mpacts of ink formulations, the risk characterization (Section 3.7) is the most relevant. These results are
jased on modeled assumptions about conditions and practices in flexographic printing facilities, and
tierefore may not represent all printing facilities. However, in any printing facility, workers are exposed to
printing chemicals to some extent. Chapter 7 contains information about practices that can reduce or
eliminate pollution and worker exposure from many steps in the printing process.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
Thirty of the 48 chemicals for which toxicological information is available were found to
represent medium or high hazard levels for systemic or developmental toxic effects. In
addition, two chemicals, crystalline silica and ethanol, have been documented to be carcinogenic
to humans. Another six chemicals show evidence of carcinogenicity via inhalation or dermal
exposure routes, but are not classified as carcinogenic at this time. (See Section 3.2)
With regard to ecological hazard, the analysis found that 18 chemicals were of high concern,
and another 35 had medium hazard rankings. (See Section 3.2)
The solvent-based inks released considerably more volatile matter than the water-based and
UV-cured inks. Water-based and UV-cured ink releases were comparable; however, the UV-cured
results should be interpreted as an upper limit or worst-case scenario, because in practice much of
the volatile material reacts and becomes nonvolatile. (See Section" 3.4)
Inhalation exposure is related to air releases. For workers in the press room, exposure is
highest with solvent-based inks because of their higher air release rate. For the general
population, however, exposure from solvent-based inks is lower than that from water-based inks
because of the anticipated use of emission control equipment with solvent-based inks. v
The dermal exposure for prep room and press room workers is comparable for all three ink systems,
and there is no expected dermal exposure for the general population. (See Sections 3.5 and 3.6)
Each ink system contained chemicals of clear risk for occupational health. For both solvent-
based and water-based inks, the chemicals that most commonly were of clear risk were solvents,
with some colorants and other chemicals also listed. For UV-cured inks, chemicals of clear
occupational risk were monomers, pigments, additives, and some chemicals that crossed functional
categories.
Regarding risk to the general population, no chemicals were found to be of clear risk.
Possible risk was posed by some solvents in solvent-based and water-based inks, and by some
monomers and other chemicals in UV-cured inks. (See Section 3.7)
CAVEATS
These results analyze only 45 of the many thousands of ink formulations that are available.
They represent only a snapshot taken at a small selection of printing facilities, and should not be
taken as representative of inks in general.
The results presented in this chapter were based on the ink formulations as submitted to DfE;
reaction products orother changes in chemical composition resulting from the printing process (e.g.,
the curing process for UV-cured inks) were not considered.
Information for some chemicals was incomplete. EPA's Structure Activity Team (SAT) estimated
properties for these chemicals based on molecular structure, similarity to well-studied chemicals,
and other factors, but SAT reports are less preferable than direct toxicological research results.
The results of this analysis also are dependent on assumptions that may or may not be true for other
printing situations. (The assumptions are stated in the chapter and accompanying appendices.) For
example, dermal results were calculated based on the assumption that no gloves are worn. If
workers wear gloves when working with these chemicals, dermal exposure and risk would be
substantially lower than reported here. Readers are advised to use caution when applying any
results from this analysis to other situations.
The designation of a chemical as being of "high" hazard or "clear" risk does not give any indication
of the potency of a chemical other than the fact that it meets the defined minimum threshold. A
chemical with a high hazard or clear risk, therefore, may be slightly above the respective threshold,
or may be far beyond that threshold.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO RISK
This section describes common concepts and components of a risk assessment. This
information provides a context in which to understand the risk assessment that was
performed on the flexographic chemicals studied in this CTSA.
Background
Chemicals affect the health of humans and the environment in a variety of ways. Human
exposure to chemicals may occur through air that is inhaled, through water and food that
are ingested, or through skin contact. Exposure to particular chemicals may create
concentration levels that result in cellular damage, which in turn may cause disease and
death.1 A risk assessment is a four-step process that identifies chemicals that may present
harm to humans and other organisms.
A risk assessment includes four primary parts:
1 hazard identification
2 dose-response assessment
3 exposure assessment
4 risk characterization
Hazard Identification
The first step in a risk assessment is hazard identification. This asks whether a chemical
could cause adverse health effects in humans or in nature. That is, have toxic or
carcinogenic effects been observed in previous studies of the chemical? Hazard is
independent of exposure, so it is necessary to conduct a dose-response assessment and
exposure assessment before applying hazard information directly to a specific set of
conditions.
Dose-response Assessment
A dose-response assessment determines the chemical's toxicity — the relationship between
the dose of a chemical received and the incidence and severity of adverse health effects in
the exposed population. Epidemiological or historical human-based data are the preferred
sources used to determine toxicity values. If those types of data are not available,
laboratory animal studies are evaluated to see how their data may apply to humans!
Toxicity values are used to estimate effects resulting from exposure to a chemical.
In this CTSA, results of the hazard identification and dose-response assessment are
presented together in one section.
Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment identifies populations (e.g., different groups such as factory
workers or residents of an area) that are or could be exposed to a chemical. The exposure
assessment describes the population's composition and size, and it identifies the types,
magnitudes, frequencies, and durations of their exposure to the chemical. For this project!
the exposure assessment assumes that workers in a flexographic printing plant can be
exposed to chemicals via dermal (skin) or inhalation (breathing) absorption, and that the
general population can be exposed via inhalation only. It is assumed that neither
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-4
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
population is subject to toxic effects via oral exposure (e.g., drinking or eating
contaminated substances).
Risk Characterization
A risk characterization uses hazard, dose-response, and exposure information to develop
quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. A good risk characterization describes the
assumptions, scientific judgments, and uncertainties embodied in the assessment.
Quantitative Expressions of Hazard and Risk
The manner in which estimates of hazard and risk are expressed depends on the nature of
the hazard and the types of data upon which the assessment is based. For example, cancer
risks are most often expressed as the probability of an individual developing cancer over
a lifetime of exposure to the chemical in question. Risk estimates for adverse effects other
than cancer are usually expressed as the ratio of the toxicological potency of the chemical
to the estimated dose or exposure level received. A key distinction between cancer and
other toxicological effects is that most carcinogens are assumed to have no dose threshold.
That is, exposure to any amount of the chemical is assumed to carry some risk. Other
toxicological effects are generally assumed to have a dose threshold — an exposure level
below which a significant adverse effect is not expected.
The Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the lowest daily human exposure that is likely
to be without appreciable risk of deleterious, non-cancerous effects during a lifetime. The
RfD is usually expressed as an oral dose per kilogram of body weight (given in units of
mg/kg/day). The Reference Concentration (RfC) is an analogous value for continuous
inhalation exposure, usually expressed in mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter).
Deriving an RfD or RfC involves determining a No Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL) or Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) from an appropriate
toxicological or epidemiological study, and then applying various uncertainty and
modifying factors to arrive at the RfD or RfC. The NOAEL is the highest exposure level
that can occur without statistically or biologically significant adverse effects, and the
LOAEL is the lowest exposure level at which adverse effects have been shown to occur.
Although some RfDs and RfCs are based on actual human data, they are most often
calculated from results obtained in laboratory animal studies. The following represents the
equation for a RfD:
RfD =
NOAEL (or LOAEL)
UF*MF
In this equation, the Uncertainty Factor (UF) is a factor that reflects the various types of
data sets used to estimate the RfD. For example, a valid chronic animal NOAEL is
normally divided by a UF of 100. Several forms of uncertainty are accounted for in the
UF: variation in sensitivity among members of the human population, the uncertainty in
extrapolating animal data to the case of humans, the uncertainty in extrapolating from data
obtained in a study that is of less-than-lifetime exposure, and the uncertainty in using
LOAEL data rather than NOAEL data. The Modifying Factor (MF) is applied based on
a professional judgement of the data base for the chemical. The default value for MF is
1.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-5
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Definitions of Systemic Toxicity, Developmental Toxicity, and Carcinogenic Effects
This risk assessment identifies systemic toxicity, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenic
risks of chemicals found hi the ink formulations used in the performance demonstrations.
These measures are explained hi more detail below.
Systemic Toxicity
Systemic toxicity refers to adverse effects on any organ system following absorption and
distribution of a chemical throughout the body. Adverse effects other than cancer and gene
mutations are generally assumed to have a dose or exposure threshold. Thus, much of the
evaluation for systemic toxicity for each chemical will depend on the relationship between
the threshold and the anticipated exposure.
} -• ~ r
RfDs and RfCs can be used to evaluate risks from chronic (long-term) exposures to
systemic toxicants. EPA has defined an expression of risk called a Hazard Quotient (HQ),
which is the ratio of the average daily dose to the RfD or RfC. HQ values below 1 imply
that adverse effects are very unlikely to occur. The more the HQ exceeds 1, the greater
the level of concern. It is important to remember that the HQ is not a probabilistic
statement of risk; a quotient of 0.001 does not mean that there is a one-in-a-thousand
chance of the effect occurring. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the level of
concern does not necessarily increase linearly as the HQ approaches or exceeds 1. The
HQ is calculated by the following equation:
HQ =
ADD
RfD (or RfC)
The derivation of the Average Daily Dose (ADD) is described in Section 3.7, Risk
Characterization.
When an RfD or RfC is not available, risk may be expressed as the Margin of Exposure
(MOE) instead of a HQ. The MOE is the ratio of a NOAEL or LOAEL (preferably from
a chronic study) to an estimated dose or exposure level. The following equation represents
the calculation of a MOE:
MOE =
NOAEL (or LOAEL)
calculated or measured human dose
High MOE values (e.g., greater than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or 1,000 for a
LOAEL-based MOE) imply a low level of risk. As the MOE decreases, the level of risk
increases. As with the HQ, it is important to remember that the MOEis not a probabilistic
statement of risk.
Reproductive toxicity is also an important aspect of systemic toxicity. For purposes of this
assessment, toxicity information on adult male and female reproductive systems was
assessed.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-6
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
Developmental Toxicity
EPA defines developmental toxicity as adverse effects on a developing organism that may
result from exposure prior to conception, during prenatal development, or postnatally up
to the time of sexual maturation. This is different from reproductive toxicity, which is a
component of systemic toxicity and represents adverse effects on the reproductive systems
of mature organisms. Adverse developmental effects may be detected at any point in the
life span of the organism. The major manifestations of developmental toxicity are (a)
death, (b) structural abnormality, (c) altered growth, or (d) functional deficiency.
Because many elements associated with the hazard and exposure components of
developmental toxicity risk assessment are unique, this assessment treats these risks
separately from other systemic toxicity risks.
Developmental toxicity assessments usually assume that a single exposure at any
developmental stage may be sufficient to produce an adverse developmental effect. In the
case of intermittent exposures, an examination of the peak exposure(s) is as important as
the average dose over the time period of exposure. In this project, however, an acute
(short-term) risk sampling showed an insignificant likelihood of acute effects; therefore,
further peak exposure modeling was not performed, and only average exposure values are
presented in this report.
EPA has derived RfDs and RfCs for developmental toxicants in a manner similar to its
derivation of RfDs and RfCs for systemic toxicants. The RfDDT or RfCDT is an estimate
of a daily exposure to developmental toxicants by a human population that is assumed to
be without appreciable risk of deleterious developmental effects. The use of the subscript
"DT" refers specifically to developmental toxicity.
Developmental toxicity risk can be expressed as a Hazard Quotient (dose or exposure level
divided by the RfDDT or RfCDT) or a Margin of Exposure (NOAEL or LOAEL divided by
the dose or exposure level).
Carcinogenic Effects
Carcinogenic effects are malignant tumors caused by cancer. EPA groups chemicals into
one of the five weight-of-evidence categories, which indicate the extent to which the
available data support the hypothesis that a substance causes cancer in humans. The
categories are listed below:
• Group A — human carcinogen
• Group B — probable human carcinogen (Bl indicates limited human evidence,
B2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals but inadequate or no
evidence in humans)
• Group C — possible human carcinogen
• Group D — not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
• Group E — evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-7
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has an analogous categorization
system; in this CTSA, both categorization systems are used wherever information is
available.
The 1996 EPA proposed guidelines for carcinogenicity assessment use three categories to
describe human carcinogenic potential:
• Known/Likely — available tumor effects and other key data are adequate to
demonstrate carcinogenic potential for humans convincingly
• Cannot Be Determined — available tumor effects or other key data are suggestive,
conflicting, or limited in quantity, and therefore are not adequate to demonstrate
carcinogenic potential for humans convincingly
• Not Likely — experimental evidence is satisfactory for deciding that there is no
basis for human hazard concern
When the available data are sufficient, EPA calculates a quantitative estimate of the
chemical's carcinogenic potency. Three measures are the slope factor, unit risk, and
cancer risk.
Slope factors express carcinogenic potency in terms of the estimated upper-bound
incremental lifetime risk, in milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) average daily
dose.
Unit risk is a similar measure of potency for air or drinking water concentrations. Unit
risk is expressed as risk per ^g/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in air or as risk per /*g/L
(micrograms per liter) in water for continuous lifetime exposures.a
Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the estimated dose or exposure level by the
appropriate measure of carcinogenic potency. For example, an individual who has a
lifetime average daily dose of 0.003 mg/kg of a carcinogen with a potency of 0.02
mg/kg/day would experience a lifetime cancer risk of 0.00006 (1 in 17,000) from exposure
to that chemical. In general, risks from exposure to more than one carcinogen are
assumed to be additive (the risk caused by each additional chemical leads to a larger
overall risk), unless other information points toward a different interpretation.
Definition of Aquatic Toxicity
Aquatic toxicity refers to an adverse effect on an aquatic organism following exposure to
a toxicant. For this analysis, acute and chronic aquatic toxicity values were gathered for
fish, aquatic invertebrates, and green algae. The acute values are reported in either of two
ways:
• LC50, the concentration at which 50 percent of test organisms die within a
specified short-term exposure period
• EC50, the concentration at which 50 percent of the organisms show an adverse
(non-lethal) effect, such as growth inhibition, at the end of the exposure period.
a Sufficient input data were not available for the flexographic ink chemicals considered in this
CTSA; therefore, slope factors or unit risk measures were not calculated for this analysis.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-8
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.2 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS
Human Health Hazards
Human Health Hazard Methodology
As a first step toward determining the hazards and potential exposure associated with each
chemical found in the flexographic inks used in this study, EPA compiled information
about their chemical and physical properties. Profiles of the CTSA chemicals are
presented in Appendix 3-A. The profiles include the chemical structure and key
properties, including molecular weight, melting and boiling point, vapor pressure, flash
point, water solubility, density, and function in ink. The chemicals are listed
alphabetically, with their synonyms and CAS numbers, in Table 3-A. 1 of that Appendix.
Databases exist that list chemical hazard information used to characterize systemic,
developmental, and carcinogenic effects. Most databases are available through online
searching and are maintained by a variety of government and private organizations. They
may contain both numeric and textual information relating to the chemicals. Some of the
hazard databases used in the initial literature search for this CTSA include the following:
• EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
• National Library of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB)
• TOXLINE
• TOXLIT
• GENETOX
• Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS)
• American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
• National Toxicology Program (NTP)
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
These databases yielded secondary data for this report; no attempts were made to verify
the information. Other data were also reviewed, including toxicological data developed
under EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Chemical Testing Program, as
well as unpublished data submitted under TSCA §§ 8(d) and 8(e) found in the TSCA Test
Submissions System and TRIAGE databases.
Human health hazard profiles were prepared for chemicals about which human
toxicological data exist in databases. A hazard level (low, medium, or high) was assigned
to each chemical based on the available data for dermal and inhalation routes for systemic
and developmental effects.
When toxicity data were not available for particular exposure routes, toxicity values were
estimated based on data from other exposure routes. For example, the systemic LOAEL
(dermal exposure route) for ammonia was derived from oral exposure data. In addition,
some data originating from an inhalation study, for example, may have been systematically
converted to oral toxicity value before being converted back to an inhalation value for this
analysis. In general, using toxicity values derived from alternate pathway data increases
the uncertainty of the risk results.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-9
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Many of the chemicals contained in the flexographic inks researched in this CTSA were
not represented adequately in the databases listed above. These chemicals were evaluated
by the Structure Activity Team (SAT) of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
The SAT provided hazard levels based on analog data and/or structure activity
considerations, in which characteristics of the chemicals were estimated in part based on
similarities with chemicals that have been studied more thoroughly. Using SAT hazard
evaluations introduces a greater level of uncertainty in the results. SAT-based systemic
toxicity concerns were ranked according to the following criteria:
• High concern - evidence of adverse effects in humans, or conclusive evidence
of severe effects in animal studies
• Moderate concern - suggestive evidence of toxic effects in animals; or close
structural, functional, and/or mechanistic analogy to chemicals with known
toxicity
• Low concern — chemicals not meeting the above criteria
When a chemical did not clearly fit one of the SAT concern level categories, ratings of
low-moderate or moderate-high were assigned. It should be noted that SAT-based
developmental toxicity concerns were not ranked; the SAT only indicated whether a
concern for developmental toxicity existed for a given chemical.
Human Health Hazard Results
Tables 3.1 A-F present a summary of the hazard information for each chemical used in this
CTSA. The tables contain the following columns.
• Chemical Category indicates the category under which the chemical is grouped.
These categories are the basis of the subsequent release, exposure, and risk
analyses.
• Ink System lists the ink systems that contain at least one chemical within each
chemical category.
• ChemicaI/CAS# presents the name of the chemical and the Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) registry number assigned to the chemical.
• Expected Exposure Route indicates whether the data presented hi subsequent
columns is based on inhalation or dermal exposure. If inhalation exposure is not
provided for a chemical, that indicates that the compound has a vapor pressure
below 0.01 mm Hg, and therefore inhalation would not be expected.
• Estimated Concentration of Concern is a calculated figure based on
toxicological data; it indicates the concentration at which systemic or
developmental effects may begin to appear.
• Concern for Toxic Effects indicates whether the chemical poses a low, medium,
or high hazard concern (see "Systemic Toxicological Effects" and "Developmental
Toxic Effects" in this section for more information). There are two values
presented in each cell: the first indicates the hazard level for systemic effects, and
the second lists the hazard for developmental effects. An indication of whether the
hazard level is based on toxicological data (Tox) or on a SAT report (SAT)
follows in parentheses.
• Toxicological Endpoints presents the type of anticipated health effects that have
been reported for animal or human studies. This is a qualitative listing of reported
effects; it does not imply anything about the severity of the effects or the doses at
which the effects occur.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-10
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
This section describes the overall hazard findings and then presents a summary for each
ink function (e.g., solvents and colorants). For a more detailed presentation of health
hazard results, see Tables 3-B.l and 3-B.2 in Appendix 3-B.
Hazard is summarized for systemic and developmental effects. For chemicals with
toxicological data, a level of low, medium, or high are assigned based on the available
dose-response information.
Systemic Toxic Effects: Hazard levels for systemic toxic effects of the flexographic ink
chemicals were derived from subchronic/chronic toxicity information found in the human
health hazard profiles (see Appendix 3-B).3 The following results are shown in Table 3.1:
• Twenty-one chemicals presented a low hazard (practically non-toxic to slightly
toxic, dermal LD50 > 2 g/kg).b
• Twenty presented a medium hazard (moderately toxic at subchronic/chronic oral
doses > 50mg/kg).
• Two (ethanol and silica) presented a high hazard (severe to frank toxicity at
subchronic/chronic oral doses < 50 mg/kg).
The most common systemic effects observed in animal studies are listed below. Toxic
effects seen in animals were presumed to be also manifested in humans.
• respiratory and neurotoxic effects (19 chemicals)
• altered organ weights (19 chemicals)
• liver effects (18 chemicals)
• blood effects (15 chemicals)
• decreased body weight or body weight gain (15 chemicals)
• reproductive effects (14 chemicals)
• kidney effects (12 chemicals)
• changes in serum or clinical chemistry (nine chemicals)
• skin effects (eight chemicals)
Chemicals without adequate systemic toxicity data were evaluated by the SAT. The SAT
reports indicated that 14 chemicals were of low hazard, 35 were of low to moderate
hazard, and four were of moderate hazard.4 None were of high hazard.
Developmental Toxic Effects: Adequate developmental toxicity data (including NOAELs
or LOAELs) were available for 24 flexographic ink chemicals. RfDDT and RfCDT were not
available for any of the chemicals. Hazard levels for developmental effects of these
chemicals were derived from developmental toxicity information found in the human
health hazard profiles.5 The following are shown in Table 3.1:
• Sixteen chemicals presented a low hazard (no effects or effects seen at oral doses
>250mg/kg/day).
• Four presented a medium hazard (effects seen at oral doses of 50 to 250
mg/kg/day).
b LD50 is the dose of a chemical taken by mouth, adsorbed by the skin, or injected that is
estimated to cause death in 50 percent of the test animals.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-11
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
• Four (barium, ethanolamine, isopropanol, and styrene) presented a high hazard
(effects seen at oral doses ^50 mg/kg/day).
The most common developmental effects observed in animal studies are listed below.
Toxic effects seen in animals were presumed to be also manifested in humans.
• decreased pre- or post-natal survival and decreased fetal body weight or body
weight gain (nine chemicals)
• fetal malformations (seven chemicals)
• retarded skeletal and/or muscle growth and development (four chemicals)
• inhibited or altered fetal growth and/or development (three chemicals)
• delayed, poor, or non-ossification of bones (three chemicals)
• altered fetal organ weights (three chemicals)
• central nervous system structural anomalies (two chemicals)
• altered gonad growth and development (two chemicals)
• skeletal variants (three chemicals)
• unspecified fetotoxicity (two chemicals)
Of the chemicals without adequate developmental toxicity data, SAT reports indicated a
developmental hazard for 15 chemicals.
Table 3.1 is separated into six sections; each table corresponds to the chemicals' function
in the ink. Basic definitions of each function can be found in Chapter 2.
Solvents (Table 3.1-A): Sixteen of the chemicals studied in this CTSA are categorized
as solvents. Nearly all are volatile, and therefore can be inhaled. Twelve of them have
toxicological data; the remaining four were studied by the SAT. As indicated in Table
3.1-A, propylene glycol ethers generally had the lowest hazard rankings, and ethylene
glycol ethers and alcohols had the highest rankings.
Colorants (Table 3.1-B): Seventeen chemicals were colorants. In this CTSA, all of the
colorants used were pigments, or dispersed solid particles. Few of the chemicals have
undergone toxicological testing, so most (all but five) were analyzed by the SAT. Because
the compounds are solids with essentially no vapor pressure, none were expected to result
hi inhalation exposure. Table 3.1-B presents the hazard information on the colorants; most
present a low-moderate hazard as determined by the SAT.
Resins (Table 3.1-C): Ten chemicals in this CTSA were classified as resins. Eight were
analyzed by the SAT, and one (miscellaneous resins) could not be studied because there
was not enough information to perform a SAT analysis. Toxicological data were available
for one chemical. As shown in Table 3.1-C, most chemicals have a low hazard.
Additives (Table 3.1-D): Eight chemicals were categorized as additives. Toxicological
data were available for two chemicals, and the SAT analyzed four of the remaining
chemicals. There was not enough information available for the SAT to analyze two
chemicals. Table 3.1-D indicates that the organotitanium compounds were the category
with most concern, with all chemicals in that category having a medium hazard level
according to the SAT.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-12
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
UV-Reactive Compounds (Table 3.1-E): Twenty-three chemicals are included in this
group. Table 3.1-E further groups these compounds according to three functions:
monomers, oligomers, and photoinitiators. An additional category, 'multiple functions,'
contains chemicals that may belong to more than one of these groups. Toxicological data
were available for six chemicals, the SAT analyzed 14 additional chemicals, and
insufficient information was available to analyze three chemicals. Monomers were the
most consistently hazardous chemicals - all had medium hazard concern for systemic toxic
effects. However, there also were multiple-function chemicals and photoinitators with a
medium hazard level.
Multiple-Function (Table 3.1-F): This category contains chemical categories for which
the chemicals are in two or more of the categories above. For example, the category
amides and nitrogenous compounds contains chemicals that are solvents or additives. Of
the 25 chemicals in this category, toxicological data are available for 16, and the other
nine were analyzed by the SAT. As shown in Table 3.1-F, nine chemicals in this category
have either medium or high hazard levels for toxic effects (either systemic or
developmental).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-13
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
(0
o
>,
Q.
2
I
0)
(0
.o
u^
re
£
i
re
I
9
T^
«*>
O
•a
i
1
g.
1
o
g
a
ill
c *~ u
o m
0
III
~
Chemical/
CAS#
E
c m
ft
IS
0 0
>t3
!fc ^
1 Q) '*"""'
frJIJ cT
) U_ T-
M— •— '
| c w
! J|r
Q lii •—
2 "O 5
_j 2 o
— ^ flj
3 3 "Q
O — i E
5~
jisa
5
i
Nitrocellulose 9004-70-0
1
2
§
0
8
c
o
u
1
I
3
15
CD
Q
'
Polyol derivative A° CAS: NK
a ..,
to
i
>».>
I-s
2
CD
>
0
C
1
I
1
I
^
15
Q
m
Fatty acid, dimer-based polyamidi
CAS: NK
2
s
O
c
8
I
1
1
d
CD
Q
O
C
0
Fatty acids, C 18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with ethylenediamine,
hexamethylenediamine, and prop
acid 67989-30-4
2
cu
>
o
i
I
B
I
i
15
1
"^.
Resin acids, hydrogenated, meth;
esters 8050-15-5
•8
CD
§
I
^
15
CD
Q
Z
CO
0
"I
"v,
&
Z
z
Resin, miscellaneous CAS : NK
U
CD CD
S OJ
2 J=
'5.1-
|l
to 2
— .£
3 CD
0 0
£ O c
^ '0 'to
O Q. CD
_J to to
CO,
i
"ra
s
Q
2
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with
diethylene glycol and pentaerythr
68152-50-1
I
i
15
Q
c
cu
.c
15
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with
pentaerythritol, 2-propenoic acid,
benzene, and (1-methylethylenyi;
benzene CAS: NK
Q) SC" '•
o> O :£
— O^ .t
5 S, §
C (/) ©
"j •- s,
c CD
80. 2
to CO -J
0 £ 'a 3
2 .2" a? f
o SJ *— ,
o i- & c
P W c
f 1 1 i
3 i 8 i
£
& i
i
^
"(5
I
Rosin, polymerized 65997-05-9
c .
CD a5
•S •§
o ££
to
j^
'to
s
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
i
D)
I
LL
•o
o>
in
u>
fi
C
,0
13
|
•s
(Q
I
Q
O
i.
g.
cla
.
T> O
M
if
ITJ =
Ml 15
II
X T3 c
IS S 2>
88|
**i
.•§".!2 co
'*? CO O
S -c o
S
8
I
ri
poxyet
etylace
-02-7
.w
I
85
|S
0..2
CO CD
IIS
I Is
CO
.•a
I
ium
8-9
2
a=
f
> >vT-
HP
2 5* o
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
o
u>
1
li-
eu
£
•o
0)
w
•o
o
D.
E
o
o
0>
'•5
n
U.
£
n
O
re
N
n
HI
.2
.a
CO
j2
c
CD
|
U
points and
•D
C
O 1
X
£
!
ill
0,0 3
TfT]
"o w ti
CD o 2
o. 0.0
,2,3*
Chemical/
CAS#
|
C (/)
co
CO E1
.a o
c o>
is
5.3
„
o
1
I
= ?
™ ci
"c. '&
CD CO
E -a
a- =
O CO
CD ,£
CD .2
•°_t5
^t ~
'o "to
._ ^
Is
8 £>
o "S
5? '5.
p
IN
2 co
3 —
c £
>? 0)
concern for genotoxil
reproductive effects,
eye irritation
I
1
11
CD
Q
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
57472-68-1
:s
T3
-§ »
»co -=
£•>-
" o
"1
S.S
c ^:
CD CO
E -o
S- £
o co
fl) ^-
CD .2
73_ ™
^» 'p:
2 '«
1) "
8 &•
c 2
O CO
£%
.2 CD
t— CO
3 •=
0) CO
cz P
^ *
concern for genotoxi
reproductive effects,
eye irritation
OT,
1
o
«
CO
JC
c
»
m
developmental effecl
1
_
"n
1.6 Hexanediol diacrylate
0
developmental effec
OT,
d
c=
c
"a
.c
c
CO
Ti-
g
respiratory effects °
|^
z
"a
a
CNI
CO
°?
*3-
CO
in
10
CN
<3
_ra
o
CO
1
2
1
2
1
respiratory effects c
|
z
i
c
c
1o
n
_c
»
CO
CD
7)
0
=
O
o"
=J
U
s
3
O
JQ
3
0
Itered organ
CO
U)
3
V
skin and neurotoxic*
clinical chemistry
I
i
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
15625-89-5
sz
D)
Ic
"5
"1
•T— .
CO
Q.
JO
CO
£•"0
S s
»- CO
fc -^
lung effects
0,000) are ir
O A
£= to
8-S
^ CD
Low to moderate coi
molecular weight spi
I
p
"io
Acrylic acid-butyl acrylate-methyl
methacrylate-styrene polymer
27306-39-4
1
5
«> s
Q) CO ^
1 :i E
D
:
5
B
3
0
a.
5
0
5-T3
$ -|
t •£-
lung effects
0,000) are ii
8 A-
c
5
0
Q.
a>
0
5--0
- *CO
t •£
lung effects
0,000) are il
3 A
£ (0
8-8
C CD
Low to moderate co
molecular weight sp
<^
II
"co
CD
Q
Styrene acrylic acid polymer #1
CAS: NK
_c
-
5
CO
I
0
a.
CD
JO
0
5-T3
s^
= .c
!! co
CDg-
II
O A
c
8f
C CD
Low to moderate co
molecular weight sp
Z 1-
"co
1 Styrene acrylic acid polymer #2
CAS:NK
-
3)
"
0
CO
U
o
J
a
a.
u
o 1
^- *n
2 H
t ^
5 CO
O A
"~ n
c c/>
§1
C CD
1 Low to moderate co
1 molecular weiahtsp
in
ii
"co
CD
Q
-r
Styrene acrylic acid resin CAS: f
Dr pressure <0.001mmHg'
Q.
5
(0
r:
"cO
q
]ro w
> 0)
o> ^
"S (D
slls
as not included for compounds that are n
itemic concern; the second represents de
H=High; NA=No data or information avail
:n observed from a different exposure rou
l&l!
O CO .— ...
i |sl
1 1|.|
Ifll
C« -0 0
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-19
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER.
RISK
o
Q.
S
C)
I
u.
0)
•o
o
(0
w
•o
3
O
Q.
E
o
O
u
3
3
1
E
c
0
o
1
C II
Tox endpoints a
c«J
N
o *- «t
OfiUJ
Expected T
Exposure
Route" 1
—
Chemical/
CAS#
E
= •§
OT
I
"«™ ^^
!? C
.S! o
II1
53
low concern overall
I
3
"S
S
TJ
"co
C
CD
O>
S
1
CD C
< «
•g
bone effects "
f
z
"a
J2
CD
C
CD
"E.
in
•o
c
CO
0
s
'o
I"
"cc
(A
. -3 -13
0 0 C
111
E
CD
| oral study found low or negligible cone
X
i
CO
S
E
O
| oral study found low or negligible cone
I
Inhalation I
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
84-61-7
..
3
a
5
5
(O
ci
3
3
3
x
j
2
D
I concern for genotoxicity, oncogenicity,
I and developmental toxicity
5
=^P
U
~m
CD
Q
c"
o
1
CO
c
(U
CO
o
CO
*o
s
f
§
o
s
1
concern for genotoxicity, oncogenicity,
and developmental toxicity
5
2"
Inhalation
3
CO
s
N
C
Ethyl 4-dimethylaminobei
10287-53-3
>
3
.0
|ll
2?
o
§ 3"
it
s
c: o>
o o
.—. c
ra '§
£ 8
CD c
Jl
concern for skin, eye, and mucous me
genotoxicity, and narcosis at high dosi
|
i
"5
f
CD
O)
O
C.
fj
cf
o
^=
1=
CD
c
<0
jQ . .
ECO
-. 0)
concern for skin, eye, and mucous me
genotoxicity, and narcosis at high dosi
I
1
Inhalation
"m
03
1
T3
Distillates, petroleum, hy
light
64742-47-8
3
n
o>
£
o
J3
1
.£
M
f
z
"5
S
| skin effects, benign skin tumors °
I
|
1 Inhalation
O)
c
1
CD
^ >O
Distillates, petroleum, so
light paraffinic 64741 -89-
E
1
CD
5
5>
5
T3
C.
D
TD
tn
2
o
|
^
~0
a
Q)
75
| oral study found low or negligible cone
t
^
1 Inhalation
Mineral oil 8012-95-1
||
-
-
concern for respiratory effects
por pressure <0.001mmHg).
Is
3%
S
Paraffin wax 8002-74-2
§ •-
"o §
CO >
S
E ^
CO 2
8^ Ez
^ .0) 0> D)
>,-= 0 CD
I i E 3
CO
I
m
£
0)
:ted to be volatile i
jntal concerns.
s.i
^•§3
o > J5 ***
|a If
" §.2 S.
£ S> 13
ff 0
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-21
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Summary of Carcinogenic Effects
The available information on carcinogenic effects of chemicals in the flexographic inks
studied is presented in Table 3.2. Quantitative data were not sufficient to calculate slope
factors; therefore, the information in Table 3.2 is qualitative in nature.
Seven chemicals have been given classifications by either the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) or EPA:
• Crystalline silica and ethanol are IARC Group 1 chemicals, which indicates that
: mere is sufficient evidence that they are carcinogenic to humans. ,
• Amorphous silica, isopropanol, polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene are
IARC Group 3 chemicals, which indicates that their characteristics with respect
to cancer cannot'be determined. :
• Propanol has been categorized by EPA as a Group C chemical, or possible human
carcinogen. ,
Six additional chemicals are listed for which evidence of carcinogenicity via inhalation or
dermal exposure routes has been documented in literature, but which have not been
assigned IARC or EPA classifications. Three of these chemicals, C.I. Pigment White 6,
kaolin, and acrylic resin, have been documented to cause lung tumors in rats. Two types
of petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light and solvent-refined light paraffinics, have been
shown to cause skin tumors in mice. Styrene has been documented to cause mammary
tumors in rats. :
SAT reports indicated low to moderate carcinogenicity hazard levels for 17 chemicals.
All'other chemicals for which SAT'reports were generated indicated either low or
negligible carcinogenicity "hazard. ... .
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-23
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
(A
_O
**^
m
o
S
55
w
.2
O
0)
I
re
.0
E
0>
O
N
eo
£ CO
c
0
h
i n ^
P
i
Carcinogenic to hi
1 1 by IARC.
1 1
I
111
Chem
rystalline silica
jl o
'= %
rn 'c
ice for carcinoi
J for carcinoge.
I Inadequate evider
I sufficient evidence
o
c
CO
JZ
UJ
umors in rats.
I Evidence of lung t
co
S
'c
CD
O)
0.
d
g
'o
CO
M
_g
o
CO
G?
Jmors in mice.
I Evidence of skin ti
£
.O)
S
CO
£
8
J,
S
g
I
i
_ro
1
b
E
c
n skin tumors i
| Evidence of benigi
8
1
CO
CO
Q.
.2*
*o
D
3
3
irylated polyester polymer #1
irylated polyester polymer #2
CD
"(0
Q.
en
1. Basic Violet 1 , molybdatepho;
S
CO
f
o
.c
9-
1
!. Basic Violet 1, molybdatetunc
T;
I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt i
^~.
£
. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt
,_**
^,
. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt
.Pigment Violet 27
|
0)
Q.
iropylene glycoi diacrylate
.y.
lyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate
_i_
-hexanediol diacrylate
co
g-
to
c
0
8
CJ
CO
>.
propoxyethoxytitanium bis(acet
o
fl)
"eo
u
nethylolpropane ethoxylate tria
•c
^5
J5
1
nethylolpropane propoxylate tri
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
Ecological Hazards
Ecological Hazard Methodology
This analysis addressed the ecological hazards of flexographic ink chemicals to aquatic
species (fish, aquatic invertebrates, and green algae). Hazards to terrestrial species were
not assessed because sufficient toxicity data were not available. Aquatic toxicity values
may be obtained from the results of standard toxicity tests reported to EPA, published in
the literature, or estimated using predictive techniques. Please see Appendix 3-B for more
information about the methodology used in this analysis for determining ecological
hazards.
For this study, discrete organic chemicals were assessed using predictive equations called
Structure Activity Relationships (SARs), which estimate the acute and chronic toxicity of
chemicals to aquatic organisms. The toxicity values relate to individual chemicals only;
interactions among chemicals within a formulation were not considered. Although
measured values are preferred, SAR estimates can be used in the absence of test data to
estimate toxicity values within a specific chemical class. The equations are derived from
correlation and linear regression analyses based on measured data.
Aquatic hazard profiles for each flexographic ink chemical consisted of a maximum of
three acute toxicity values and three chronic values:
• Fish acute value (usually a fish 96-hour LC50 value)
• Aquatic invertebrate acute value (usually a daphnid 48-hour LC50 value)
• Green algal toxicity value (usually an algal 96-hour EC50 value)
• Fish chronic value (ChV) (usually a fish 28-day early life stage no-effect-
concentration chronic value)
• Aquatic invertebrate chronic value (usually a daphnid 21-day ChV)
• Algal chronic value (usually an algal 96-hour value for biomass)
The ecological hazards of the chemicals were determined in a similar manner to the human
hazards presented earlier in this section. The analysis was complicated by two issues: 1)
many of the compounds were not addressed by existing aquatic toxicity test literature; and
2) some of the chemicals (e.g., petroleum-based products) were mixtures, not discrete
compounds.
The concentration of concern was also derived for each chemical. This value was
calculated by dividing the lowest of the three chronic values by a factor of ten. If the
discharge of a chemical to the aquatic environment resulted in an estimated concentration
equal to or greater than the concern concentration, then the chemical would likely be
hazardous to organisms found in the aquatic environment.
For the purpose of an overall assessment, the listed chemicals can be given an aquatic
hazard level according to the concentration of concern to obtain an estimated chronic
value. A chronic value is the concentration of the chemical that results in no statistically
significant sub-lethal effects on the test organism following a longer-term or chronic
exposure. The hazard level is assigned according to the following criteria:
• High hazard chemicals: estimated chronic value < 0.1 mg/L
• Medium hazard chemicals: 0.1 mg/L < estimated chronic value < 10 mg/L
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-25
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
• Low hazard chemicals: estimated chronic value > 10 mg/L
Lower chronic values indicate higher hazard levels. For example, the presence of 0.1 mg
of a high-hazard chemical in a liter of water could cause a problem, while at least 10 mg
of a low-hazard chemical would have to be present to cause similar effects.
Ecological Hazard Limitations and Uncertainty
Some petroleum products, such as mineral spirits, petroleum distillates, and solvent
naphtha, are mixtures. They do not lend themselves readily to the standard hazard
assessment process using SARs, because the chemical constituents and the percentage of
each in the mixture vary. The constituents in these products include linear and branched
paraffins, and cyclic paraffins, with the total number of carbons ranging from five to
sixteen.
For this CTSA, the toxicity of a mixture was determined by estimating the toxicity of each
individual constituent. Lacking adequate description and characterization, it was assumed
that each component was present in equal proportions in the product. The geometric mean
of the range of estimates provided the best estimate of the toxicity. (These assumptions
may not have been representative of the mixture currently on the market.) The toxicity
of the individual components of the petroleum products was based on tests using pure
samples. The potential byproducts or impurities of petroleum distillation that are typically
found hi these mixtures were not incorporated into this hazard assessment.
It was also not possible to estimate the hazard of some polymers, such as acrylic acid and
polyamide polymers. However, these chemicals have molecular weights above 1,000 and
structures that would make it difficult for them to be toxic to aquatic organisms. In
general, nonionic polymers and those which are insoluble are of low aquatic hazard.
The aquatic hazard profiles for flexographic ink chemicals may consist of only measured
data, only predicted values, or a combination of both, because data sources may be
chemical-specific toxicity tests or SARs. Uncertainty or assessment factors were used to
incorporate the concepts of uncertainty and variability into concern concentration
calculations. These uncertainty factors include laboratory tests versus field data, measured
versus estimated data, and differences in species' sensitivities. In general, if only one
toxicity value is available, there is great uncertainty about the applicability of this value
, to other organisms in the environment. Conversely, when more information is available,
there is more certainty about the toxicity values.
Ecological Hazard Results
The results of the estimated aquatic toxicity determinations are presented in Tables 3-B.3
and 3-B.4 in Appendix 3-B. The lowest or most sensitive values from SAR analysis or
from actual measured test data were used. No valid, published literature was found to
conflict with the estimated values. In many cases, the predicted and measured values were
similar; for these chemicals, the lower value was selected for inclusion in Table 3-B.4.
For each chemical, the estimated toxicity values are given in mg/L for acute and chronic
effects to fish, daphnids, and algae. The last column lists the concern concentration set for
the chemical in water.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-26
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
For 26 chemicals, no aquatic toxic effects were expected. Nevertheless, concern
concentrations were calculated whenever possible. Concern concentrations ranged from
0.001 to 20 mg/L.
All the chemicals then were ranked, based on the lowest of the three estimated chronic
toxicity values. This relative toxicity ranking provides guidance to the selection and use
of chemicals that are less hazardous to aquatic organisms. The chemicals with high and
medium hazard rankings are summarized in Table 3.3. A more detailed presentation is
provided in Table 3-B.4 in Appendix 3-B.
High hazard rankings were assigned to 18 chemicals. Thirty-five chemicals had medium
hazard rankings. A low hazard rank was assigned to those chemicals for which a chronic
value could not be calculated.
This study did not characterize risk for aquatic organisms, because routine water releases
or discharges of hazardous chemicals were not anticipated from the use of the flexographic
ink. chemicals. Should such a release or discharge occur, the estimated or predicted
environmental concentration would need to exceed the lowest chronic or acute toxicity
value that was estimated for these chemicals to result in adverse effects.
However, all flexographic ink chemicals can theoretically be subject to accidental spills
or releases. Also, many flexographic printing facilities routinely release wastewater to
publicly owned water treatment plants (POTWs). Different geographic regions and
different POTWs have different levels of acceptability for such wastes, and the acceptable
levels can change over time. Discontinuing use of chemicals that appear in Table 3.3 can
help avoid potential problems.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-27
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.3 Chemicals of High and Medium Aquatic Toxicity Hazard
(Based on Toxicological Studies)
Chemicals of high hazard
Amides, tallow, hydrogenated
C.I. Basic Violet 1, molybdatephosphate
I C.I. Pigment Violet 27
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
1,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
4-lsopropylthioxanthone
Resin acids, hydrogenated, methyl esters
Thioxanthone derivative
Ammonia
C.I. Basic Violet 1,
molybdatetungstatephosphate
dicyclohexyl phthalate
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
n-Heptane
2-lsopropylthioxanthone
Mineral oil
Styrene
Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
Chemicals of medium hazard
Acrylic acid polymer, acidic #1
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated
2-Benzyl-2-(dimethylamino)-4'-
morpholinobutyrophenone
C.I. Pigment Blue 61
C.I. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt (1:1)
Citric acid
Dioctyl sulfosuccinate, sodium salt
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
[ Ethyl acetate
1-Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone
[ Hydroxypropyl acrylate
I Methylenedisalicylic acid
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-
dimethoxybenzoyl) (2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)-
Resin, acrylic
Styrene acrylic acid polymer #1
Styrene acrylic acid resin
Titanium diisopropoxide bis (2,4-
pentanedionate)
I Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Acrylic acid polymer, acidic #2
Ammonium hydroxide
Butyl acetate
C.I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt (1:1)
D&C Red No.7
Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)
phosphine oxide
Ethanolamine
Ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate
Hydroxylamine derivative
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium
bis(acetylacetonate)
2-Methyl-4'(methylthio)-2-
morpholinopropiophenone
Propyl acetate
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light
aliphatic
Styrene acrylic acid polymer #2
Tetramethyldecyndiol
Trimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-28
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.3 CATEGORIZATION OF FLEXOGRAPfflC INK CHEMICALS FOR THIS CTSA
This section describes the categories that each flexographic ink chemical was assigned.
This was done because the specific chemical formulations of flexographic inks are
generally considered to be proprietary. Manufacturers prefer not to reveal their
formulations, because a competitor can potentially use this information to formulate and
sell a nearly identical ink, often at a lower price without having to invest in research and
development. Therefore, the Flexography Project developed a system to mask specific ink
formulations discussed in the CTSA.
Each participating supplier voluntarily submitted a product line to EPA, where it was
entered as Confidential Business Information (CBI). EPA completed the risk
characterization using the exact formulations but without knowledge of the supplier. Each
brand name was replaced with an ink system number (e.g., Solvent-based Ink #S1). This
numbering system is used throughout the CTSA. In addition, to maintain the
confidentiality of the formulations, the CTSA reports the results using the categorization
system shown in Table 3.4. Results were reported for chemical categories only, and
specific chemicals are not linked in the CTSA to any particular formulation. The final
column in Table 3.4 presents the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number for each
chemical. Many chemicals have multiple names, so CAS numbers are used as a universal
way of identifying unique chemicals.
In addition to the chemicals found in the flexographic ink formulations, press-side solvents
and additives were used in most of the performance demonstration runs. Table 3-A.2 in
Appendix 3-A lists the press-side solvents and additives used for each ink formulation at
each demonstration site. These chemicals were also considered in this risk assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-29
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.4 Categorization of Ink Chemicals
Category
Acrylated polyols
Acrylated polymers
Acrylic acid
polymers
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Amides or
nitrogenous
compounds
Aromatic esters
Aromatic ketones
Chemicals in category
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
1 ,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Acrylated epoxy polymer0
Acrylated oligoamine polymer0
Acrylated polyester polymer (#'s 1 and 2)°
Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
Trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
Trimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate
Acrylic acid-butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate-
styrene polymer
Acrylic acid polymer, acidic (#'s 1 and 2)°
Acrylic acid polymer, insoluble0
Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate polymer
Styrene acrylic acid polymer (#'s 1 and 2)°
Styrene acrylic acid resin0
Ethanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Propanol
Tetramethyldecyndiol
Butyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
Propyl acetate
Amides, tallow, hydrogenated
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Erucamide
Ethanolamine
Hydroxylamine derivative
Urea
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
Ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate
2-Benzyl-2-(dimethylamino)-4'-
morpholinobutyrophenone
1-Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone
2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone
2-lsopropylthioxanthone
4-lsopropylthioxanthone
2-Methyl-4'-(methylthio)-2-
morpholinopropiophenone
Thioxanthone derivative0
CAS
number
57472-68-1
13048-33-4
25584-83-2
15625-89-5
NAa
NA
NA
52408-84-1
28961-43-5
53879-54-2
27306-39-4
NA
NA
25035-69-2
NA
NA
64-17-5
78-83-1
67-63-0
71-23-8
126-86-3
123-86-4
141-78-6
109-60-4
61790-31-6
7664-41-7
1336-21-6
112-84-5
141-43-5
NA
57-13-6
84-61-7'
10287-53-5
119313-12-1
947-19-3
7473-98-5
5495-84-1
83846-86-0
71868-10-5
NA
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-30
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.4 Categorization of Ink Chemicals (continued)
Category
Ethylene glycol
ethers
Hydrocarbons —
high molecular
weight
Hydrocarbons —
low molecular
weight
Inorganics
Olefin polymers
Organic acids or
salts
Organophosphorus
compounds
Organotitanium
compounds
Pigments —
inorganic
Pigments —
organic
Chemicals in category
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated
Butyl carbitol
Ethoxylated tetramethyldecyndiol
Ethyl carbitol
Polyethylene glycol
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
Distillates (petroleum), solvent-refined light
paraffinic
Mineral oil
Paraffin wax
n-Heptane
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic
Styrene
Barium
Kaolin
Silica
Polyethylene
Polytetrafluoroethylene
Citric acid
Dioctyl sulfosuccinate, sodium salt
Methylenedisalicylic acid
Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine
oxide
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)
(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)-
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis(acetylacetonate)
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-pentanedionate)
Titanium isopropoxide
C.I. Pigment White 6
C.I. Pigment White 7
C.I. Pigment Blue 61
C.I. Pigment Red 23
C.I. Pigment Red 269
C.I. Pigment Violet 23
C.I. Pigment Yellow 14
C.I. Pigment Yellow 74
CAS
number
68131-40-8
112-34-5
9014-85-1
111-90-0
25322-68-3
64742-47-8
64741-89-5
8012-95-1
8002-74-2
142-82-5
64742-89-8
100-42-5
7440-39-3
1332-58-7
7631-86-9
9002-88-4
9002-84-0
77-92-9
577-11-7
27496-82-8
75980-60-8
1241-94-7
145052-34-2
68586-02-7
17927-72-9
546-68-9
13463-67-7
1314-98-3
1324-76-1
6471-49-4
67990-05-0
6358-30-1
5468-75-7
6358-31-2
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-31
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.4 Categorization of Ink Chemicals (continued)
Category
Pigments —
organometallic
Polyol derivatives
Propylene glycol
ethers
Resins
Siloxanes
Chemicals in category
C.I. Basic Violet 1 , molybdatephosphate
C.I. Basic Violet 1 , molybdate-
tu ngstatephosphate
C.I. Pigment Blue 15
C.I. Pigment Green 7
C.I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Red 48, calcium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt (1:1)
C.I. Pigment Violet 27
D&C Red No. 7 '
Nitrocellulose
Polypi derivative Ac
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol propyl ether
Fatty acid, dimer-based polyamide0
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with
ethylenediamine, hexamethylenediamin'e,
and propionic acid
Resin acids, hydrogenated, methyl esters
Resin, acrylic0
Resin, miscellaneous0
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with diethylene
glycol
and pentaerythritol
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with pentaerythritol,
2-propenoic acid, ethenylbenzene, and (1-
methylethylenyl)benzenec
Rosin, polymerized
Silanamine, 1,1,1 -trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyi)-,
hydrolysis products with silica
Silicone oil '
Siloxanes and silicones, di-Me, 3-hydroxypropyl
Me, ethers with polyethylene glycol acetate
CAS
number
67989-22-4
1325-82-2
147-14-8
1328-53-6
7585-41-3
7023-61-2
17852-99-2
12237-62-6
5281-04-9
9004-70-0
b
34590-94-8
107-98-2
1569-01-3
NA
67989-30-4
8050-15-5
NA
NA
68152-50-1
NA
65997-05-9
68909-20-6
63148-62-9
70914-12-4
3 No data or information available.
"Actual chemical name is confidential business information.
°Some structural information is given for these chemicals. For polymers, the submitter has supplied
the number average molecular weight and degree of functionality. The physical property data are
estimated from this information.
Chemical Categories by Product Line
This CTSA examined the health risks associated with two solvent-based, four water-based,
and three UV-cured flexographic ink product lines run at 11 different performance
demonstration sites. Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 list the chemical categories for each of these
nine product lines. The categories are listed alphabetically. An "x" denotes that a
chemical within that category is found at least once in the corresponding formulation.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-32
September2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
O3
*
C
13
in
3
o
>
0
(O
55
c
•o
U
n
.Q
0)
>
o
(0
c
CO
Chemical category
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Alcohols
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IJAIkyl acetates
X
X
X
X
X
(/)
T)
C
((Amides or nitrogenous compel
X
((Aromatic esters
X
« Hydrocarbons - high molecular
weight
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hydrocarbons - low molecular
weight
X
Inorganics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Organic acids or salts
X
X
X
X
•o
lorganophosphorous compoun
X
X
lorganotitanium compounds
X
X
X
CTJ
O
d.
X
X
o
'E
a
_c
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
(Pigments-organometallic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Polyol derivatives
X
X
X
(Propylene glycol ethers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
CO
'«
a
X
X
X
X
X
((siloxanes
(0
V)
I
0)
a
ra
I
Q>
O.
0>
£
_c
T3
(0
(0
JO
a>
"o
V)
U)
n
,0
o
o
•s
c
.o
^?
I
o
D)
I
in
0)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-33
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
1 Water-based Ink #W4 1
| Water-based Ink #W3
asedlnk#W2
£
re
*
•p-
c
in
1
co
**•*
re
a>£
c
(0
c
o>
e
(0
» CD
[j '33
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hydrocarbons -
high molecular
weight
x
X
X
» Hydrocarbons - low
molecular weight
x
x
[[Inorganics
x
x
X
X
X
•a
5
Q.
5
n
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
» Organic acids or
salts
x
X
X
X
X
1
2 .0
5 c5
= £>
3) 0
L. C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
[[Pigments-organic
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pigments-
||organometallic |
x
X
X
X
"o
LJ
5>
1)
5
rl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
T>
O
(V
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
[Siloxanes
in
o
o
§
I
o
u
re
I
Q.
0)
•o
I
J2
p
I
§
c
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
co
*
c
V
^>
=>
->
5
«
c
T>
£
O
>
3
1 <5
« c
c
o
I
C
0
%
m
6,43
s i
c
&
£
3
c
£
O
0)
3
m
i!
c
ra
0
0
jj=
3
c
o
£
o
3
m
Chemical category
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acrylated polymers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
fAcrylated polyols
X
X
X
X
X
CO
o
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
« Amides or nitrogenou
compounds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IJAromatic esters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
CD
1
g
"to
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IJOIefin polymers
X
X
X
CO
c
o
Q.
F
8
Organophosphorous
X
X
X
||pigments - inorganic
X
X
X
X
X
pigments-organic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
"m
||pigments-organomet
X
X
X
X
||Polyol derivatives
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\\S\\oxanes
in
o
i
o
0>
Q
CD
O
CO
1
o
Q.
CD
•o
I
in
re
_o
CD
O
•5
.0
£5
I
O
D)
CD
«
O
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-35
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AIR RELEASE ASSESSMENT
This section of the chapter describes the methodology and results of the assessment of
releases to air that can occur during makeready and production runs on a flexographic
press. Releases to air are used to estimate inhalation exposure to particular chemicals for
workers and the general population.
Releases to air result from the evaporation of chemicals during the flexographic printing
process. Two forms of air releases were examined: stack and fugitive. Stack emissions
are collected from the press and are released through a roof vent or stack to the outside
air, sometimes undergoing treatment to reduce the emissions. Fugitive emissions escape
from the printing process (e.g., from a long web run between presses), and exit the facility
through windows and doors.
Environmental Air Release Methodology
Air releases were calculated based on the amount of ink used and the weight percentages
and vapor pressures of the ink components. Releases were estimated for the three types
of ink (solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured) and for each of the five colors (blue,
green, white, cyan, and magenta). Figure 3.1 illustrates the overall mass balance, for
which it is assumed that an equal amount of material enters and exits the system. The
mass balance model does not take into account air releases from the use of cleaning
solutions. For a detailed explanation of the method used to calculate the environmental
releases and sample calculations, see Table 3-C.l in Appendix 3-C.
Environmental Air Release Assumptions
The following assumptions were used to calculate environmental releases:
• Ink components with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 0.001 mmHg at
25°C will volatilize.6
• 0.1 % of the volatile components will be retained on the substrate.7
• 30% of the volatile compounds released to the air will be fugitive emissions, and
70% will be captured by the press system and released through a stack.8
• Solvent-based ink releases will pass through a catalytic oxidizer with a destruction
efficiency of 95 % .9 There are no air pollution control devices for the water-based
or UV-cured ink systems.
• Ink components that do not volatilize (those with a vapor pressure less than 0.001
mmHg at 25°C) will remain with the substrate, which ends up as product or is
recycled.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-36
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
Stack Release
t
Fugitive Releases
A A
Oxidizer
(Solvent-based
Formulations Only)
Ink
A
Ink Chamber
Flexographic Press
Ink on Substrate Product
Ink in Cleaning Solution
to Waste
Ink Returned to Container
After Run
Figure 3.1 Mass Balance of Ink During Flexographic Printing
Environmental Air Release Limitations and Uncertainty
Uncertainties about the amounts of environmental releases relate to the rates of vapor
generation, which vary depending on the following factors:
• speed of the printing press
• volatile content of the ink mixture
• equipment operating time
• temperature of the ambient air and ink system
In addition, release rates may vary depending on the capture efficiency of the press system
and the destruction efficiency of the air control devices. If the capture or destruction
efficiency increases, the release rate declines.
Environmental Air Release Results
Table 3-D. 1 in Appendix 3-D presents the calculated environmental releases for each ink
formulation. This table shows the total amount of chemicals volatilized, fugitive air
releases, and stack air releases per press. Table 3.8, an excerpt from Table 3-D.l,
presents environmental air release data for Solvent-based Ink #S2 at Site 10 and Water-
based Ink #W2 at Site 1. Table 3.8 is included in the text to show the format of the data
and to indicate the magnitude of air releases.
The calculated volatilization rates of the solvent-based inks were considerably higher than
those for the other two ink systems. The total amount volatilized averaged 6.23 g/sec.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-37
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
The average stack emissions (0.216 g/sec) were considerably lower than fugitive
emissions (1.87 g/sec), reflecting the anticipated use of oxjdizers with stack emissions.
Therefore, of the total amount volatilized, only a portion would ultimately be released to
the atmosphere.
The volatilization rates for water-based inks were considerably lower than those for
solvent-based inks, with an average rate of 0.347 g/sec. However, the stack releases,
• averaging 0.250 g/sec, were calculated to be higher than those for solvent-based inks,
because the use of an oxidizer was not anticipated. On the other hand, the. fugitive
emissions, with an estimated average of 0.105 g/sec, were anticipated to be considerably
lower than those for solvent-based inks, because of the lower average VOC content of
water-based inks.
The UV-cured inks were calculated to have releases comparable to those of water-based
inks, with a total volatilization rate of 0.438 g/sec. The estimated stack and fugitive
releases were calculated to be 0.304 and 0.141 g/sec, respectively. These estimates should
be interpreted as an upper limit, because in reality much of the volatile content would react
to form a solid on the substrate, and thus would not be released to the air. This reaction
could not be quantitatively measured for this analysis, however, so the releases are based
on the volatility of the unreacted ink components.
Air releases also varied among colors within each ink system; the differences are primarily
due to different consumption rates. White ink had significantly higfrer emission and
consumption rates than the other colors because it covered a greater percentage of the
image area (see Table 6.1 in Chapter 6: Resource and Energy Conservation). Blue and
green inks had slightly higher air releases and consumption rates than cyan and magenta
inks. '
Press speed also greatly affected the amount of ink consumed. All estimates were made
assuming a press speed of 500 feet per minute (fpm) for all three ink systems. With this
press speed, ink consumption rates were approximately the same for the different ink
formulations. If the speeds observed during the performance demonstrations had been
used instead, however, the ink consumption rate and environmental air releases would
have been lower. A reduction in press speed from 500 fpm to 340 rpm (a 32.0 % reduction
hi press speed) with UV-cured inks would be expected to decrease the consumption rates
and releases by approximately 32 %. Similarly, reductions in press speed to 453 fpm and
394 fpm for solvent-based and water-based systems, respectively, would be expected-to
cause reductions hi ink consumption rates and environmental releases of 9% and 21%,
respectively.
Adding solvents, reducers, extenders, cross-linkers, and other compounds to a printing ink
usually increases its volatile content, resulting in greater environmental releases. During
the CTSA performance demonstrations, solvents were added in greater quantities to the
solvent-based formulations than to water-based or UV-cured formulations, which further
increased the releases from solvent-based inks.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-38
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
CO
42
Table 3.8 Sample Environmental Air Release Rest
0
5
O>
C9
5
>1
.-S
c
5
to
2
0
0>
m
?
•J2
«E3
Q.
o
Q.
8
IS
0)
{"
I_
<
•E-g S
gBS
C W
•s-g S
°« 8
c ~
•E-g S
2 « S
g « s
< o £
« § S
l°li
< -2 2
ll^l
P|1B
•*-• ^ W
c -5 o>
gS 8
C W
3
0
g
o
s
o
s
o
s
0
a
o
CO
S
o
§
o
s
o
o
CO
CO
o
0
m
CN
0
§
o
CO
CO
c
o
8
o
Alkyl acetates
o
o
S
d
0
o
g
o
CO
o
0
o
CO
o
0
CM
o
o
o
o
0
s
CO
o
•*
8
o
o.
8-
o
g
CD
CO
o
o
0
CM
g
0
1
0
[Hydrocarbons - low
molecular weight
CO
o
o
o
CO
g
d
o
D
O
3
O
0
CO
0
o
s
o
N
0
g
o
§
0
g
o
0
•*
r-
o
ci
s
o
8
o
CO
c
o
s
o
Alcohols
o
o
o
o'
8
CD
to
O
o
o
D
O
o
o
ci
I
o
3
O
s
0
o
•*
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
CO
o
o
ci
g
0
ci
o
o
d
Ct
[Hydrocarbons - low
molecular weight
CO
g
ci
CO
CO
CM
Ci
g
ci
CM
D
O
•3-
O
o'
m
>3-
co
d
"
CO
g
ci
CO
en
r—
CJ
O
C\
C
0
cc
o
CO
o
CO
o
Alcohols
-
ci
CO
to
co
ci
o
CM
CM
V*
: -
:s ._
"5
c
c
c
•i
^
M
o
§
d
1
C)
5
ci
«5
§
ci
10
^^
CO
ci
'
'
: ^s
Ucfcfed: Propylene glycol
\\monomethyl ether
&
ci
ci
CJ
CJ
M
Ci
O
Ci
-
-
Uc/ded: 2-Methoxy-1-
\\propanol
T"
0)
in
tn
i
1 Water-based Ink #W2
o
0
ci
ci
g
d
v...
in
CD
o
d
g
d
d
CM
o
o
d
o
o
d
CO
o
o
d
§
d,'
o
o
o
d
g
o
d
Eides or nitrogenous
ipounds -
o
o
d
|
d
8
d
'
o
d
in
o
o
0
in
o
d
8
d
8
d
8
d
o
o
d
o
o
o
d
o
o
d
« Hydrocarbons - high
molecular weight
»'•>'•
•• /•
'
•. •.
8
d
8
o
d
T—
O
o
d
o
8
d
8
o
d
8
d
I Hydrocarbons - low
molecular weight
-
g
ci
o
d
CO
CO
o
d
.
Alcohols
g
d
o
ci
CO
CO
o
d
"
HEthylene glycol ethers
ci
ci
i
ci
>-
ci
ci
t^
Ci
c
o
c
V-
o
o
o
Udded: Isobutanol
o
o
ci
Ci
i
ci
ci
3
ci
r*
c>
'
o
ci
c
t~
c
Udded:£f/?y/ca*/to/
-
'
^
ci
i
Ci
ci
-
o
s
o
CO
t~
o
o
CO
S
o
"5
c
c
1
•fc
^
o
i
ci
N
C>
v,^
Udded: Ammonia
was found in a
gory was not found in the particular formulation). If a chemica
icluded.
a Shaded areas indicate where data are not applicable (i.e., the chemical catei
product line, but resulted in zero air releases, the chemical category was not i
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-39
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Press speed also greatly affected the amount of ink consumed. All estimates were made
assuming a press speed of 500 feet per minute (fpm) for all three ink systems. With this
press speed, ink consumption rates were approximately the same for the different ink
formulations. If the speeds observed during the performance demonstrations were used
instead, however, a reduction in the ink consumption rate and environmental air releases
would result. A reduction in UV-cured formulation press speed from 500 fpm to 340 fpm
(a 32.0% reduction in press speed) would be expected to decrease the consumption rates
and releases by approximately 32%. Similarly, reductions in press speed to 453 fpm and
394 fpm for solvent-based and water-based formulations, respectively, would be expected
to cause reductions in ink consumption rates and environmental releases of 9 % and 21 %,
respectively.
Adding solvents, reducers, extenders, cross-linkers, and other compounds to a printing ink
usually increases its volatile content, resulting in greater environmental releases. During
the CTSA performance demonstrations, solvents were added in greater quantities to the
solvent-based formulations than to water-based or UV-cured formulations, which further
increased the releases from solvent-based inks.
3.5 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section describes the exposure assessment of flexographic printing plant workers to
the chemicals in the flexographic ink formulations. An exposure assessment—the third step
in a risk assessment—defines the expected exposures of an identified population to specific
chemicals.
Two scenarios were studied for this exposure assessment: workers in the ink preparation
room, and workers in the press room during a print run. Prior to a production run, the
potential for exposure exists for workers transferring and mixing inks in the ink
preparation room. During the production run, inhalation and dermal exposures can occur
when workers handle ink cans and operate the press. Inhalation exposures were estimated
using the EPA mass balance model; dermal exposures were estimated using an EPA
dermal exposure model.
The exposure assessment indicates the relative exposure levels that result from each ink
system. It can also indicate whether exposure results from primarily dermal or inhalation
pathways, and therefore may indicate whether exposure reduction measures might be
effective for a given ink system (e.g., if a facility requires the use of gloves, dermal
exposure could be nearly eliminated). The two scenarios of the assessment can also assist
in determining the variation of exposure depending on a worker's location in a printing
facility.
Occupational Exposure Methodology
The occupational exposure assessment used a model facility approach, in which reasonable
and consistent assumptions were used for each ink type. Data to characterize the model
facility were aggregated from a number of sources, including flexographic printing
facilities and industry suppliers in the United States. The model facility is not entirely
representative of any existing facility. Thus, actual exposure (and risk) could vary
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-40
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
substantially depending on site-specific operating conditions, end-products, and other
factors.
For a detailed explanation of the method used to calculate occupational exposures, see
Appendix 3-E.
Exposure Scenarios
In Scenario I, workers were exposed in the ink preparation room while pumping ink from
a 55-gallon drum into five-gallon cans, and while mixing inks in the five-gallon cans.
Under this scenario, one worker was exposed for 48 minutes per formulation per shift.
In Scenario II, workers were exposed to fugitive emissions released into the printing room
air, both by operating the printing press for a 7.5-hour shift and by adjusting the inks in
the five-gallon cans next to the ink press for 1-2.5 hours, depending on the ink type.
Scenario II used the printing room mass balance model to estimate exposures. The
following assumptions were made:
• Only one source (ink can) within the work area emits the chemical.
• The concentrations of the chemicals in a mixture are constant throughout the time
of dermal absorption.12
• The average surface area of two hands is 1,300 cm2. After coming into contact
with a chemical, the quantity of chemical remaining on the hands is assumed to be
1-3 mg/cm2. Dermal exposure is modeled assuming that the worker has routine
two-hand contact with the inks. Dermal exposures are based on an 8-hour, time-
weighted average.12
• There are three shifts per day. Each worker works 7.5 hours per day and 250
days per year. ,
• A total of nine workers are exposed per shift; one worker exposed in Scenario I
(one worker per shift) and eight workers exposed in Scenario II (two workers per
press per shift, four presses).
Table 3.9 lists the general facility assumptions that were developed for both scenarios. See
Appendix 3-E for a more detailed discussion.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-41
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
12
Table 3.9 Occupational Exposure Methodology Assumptions
Assumption Value Source
Temperature of the ink during transfer 25°C
Average ventilation rate in both rooms 7,000 ft3/min
Ventilation/room air mixing factor 0.5
Velocity of the air across the cans 100 fpm
Diameter of the five-gallon cans 1 ft
Press speed 500 fpm
Exposure time in the ink preparation 48 min/
ro°m formulation
Exposure time adjusting five-gallon ink 2.5 hr
can near the press — solvent-based inks
EPA
Average of Technical
Committee responses
EPA12
EPA12
EPA12
Performance methodology
Technical Committee
response
Technical Committee
response
Exposure time adjusting five-gallon ink
can near the press — water-based inks
Exposure time adjusting five-gallon ink
can near the press — UV-cured inks
1.0 hr
2.0 hr
Technical Committee
response
Technical Committee
response
Inhalation Exposure
The amount of a chemical in a room was calculated as follows:
Amount of chemical in a room = the amount of chemical entering the room + the
amount of chemical generated in the room - the amount of chemical leaving the room.
This analysis used a different mass balance model for each scenario.
• Scenario I used an open surface mass balance model to estimate the volatilization
of liquids from open surfaces. For chemicals with vapor pressures less than 35
mmHg at 25°C, one vapor generation rate was used.10 For chemicals with vapor
pressures greater than or equal to 35 mmHg at 25°C, a different vapor generation
rate was used (see Appendix 3-E).11
• Scenario II used a printing room mass balance model to calculate chemical
concentrations in the printing room based on fugitive emission and room
ventilation rates.
• Inhalation exposures to components with a vapor pressure less than 0.001 mmHg
at 25°C were assumed to be negligible.6
Dermal Exposure
Dermal exposures may result from contact with the inks during transferring and mixing
of the inks both before and after the production runs. A dermal contact model provided
bounding estimates and assumed that no gloves or barrier creams were used by the
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-42
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
workers.12 In situations where the ink formulation was corrosive, dermal exposure to
workers was considered negligible, because it was assumed that workers wore gloves when
working with corrosive chemicals.
Occupational Exposure Limitations and Uncertainty
Any determination of the occupational exposure levels associated with flexographic
printing activities requires making assumptions about the printing process, the workplace
environment, and health and safety practices. Occupational exposure levels differ among
facilities because of many variables, including the following:
• procedures used in handling the ink formulations
• press speed
• capture efficiency of the press system
• equipment operating time
• temperature conditions (ambient and ink)
• volatility of the chemicals in the inks
• ventilation conditions and shop layout
• number of presses per facility
• use of personal protective equipment and safety procedures
Occupational Exposure Results
Workers exposed in Scenario I had lower exposures than workers exposed in Scenario II.
This difference was due to the shorter exposure time in the ink preparation room, and to
the lower vapor generation rates resulting from an open can of ink versus those resulting
from fugitive emissions in the printing room.
The occupational exposure results indicated that dermal exposure was comparable in the
ink preparation room (Scenario I) and the press room (Scenario II). However, inhalation
exposure in the ink preparation room was very low'compared to that in the press room.
For this reason, only the results from Scenario II were used in the risk characterization.
The results of both scenarios are presented in Appendix 3-F.
Tables 3-F.l and 3-F.2 in Appendix 3-F present potential inhalation exposure rates,
minimum dermal exposure rates, and maximum dermal exposure rates for both scenarios.
Exposure rates are given for each chemical category in each of the five formulations for
each of the nine product lines: the higher the value (in nig/day), the greater the exposure
to that chemical via the given exposure pathway. The minimum and maximum dermal
exposure rates provide a range for the dermal pathway. Press-side solvents and additives
were incorporated into the data tables for Scenario II; therefore, Scenario II data were site-
specific.
Table 3.10, an excerpt from Table 3-F. 1, presents occupational exposure data for Solvent-
based Ink #S2 at Site 10 (Scenario II). Table 3.10 is included in the text to show an
example of the format of the data and to indicate the magnitude of occupational exposure.
As discussed in the environmental release section, solvent-based formulations exhibited
higher volatilization rates and higher fugitive emissions. Solvent-based inks therefore
created higher inhalation exposures than did water-based or UV-cured formulations.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-43
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Water-based and UV-cured formulations resembled each other in levels of volatile
emissions and worker inhalation exposures.
Ink consumption rates affected fugitive emissions and therefore affected occupational
exposure levels. Because ink consumption rates varied by color, workers were exposed
to the greatest amounts of volatile compounds from white inks. Also, the addition of
solvents, reducers, extenders, cross-linkers, and other compounds to the printing inks
resulted in greater occupational exposures.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-44
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
1
d>
O)
n)
C
>l
O
1
c
a
£
c
5
m £->:
™ 3 TO
5 o.|z>
Q 0) £-
nhalation
exposure
/™,-,M-,w\
«lf
c 3 42
sit
"•^ 3
TO ;
Jl g-
1 3 ro"
CD Q. O)
nhalation
exposure
m 2"5
E 3
CD R^>
•p. ZI
TO Q_
_§^
S|I
U «
1|
C OL)
1 Chemical category [
(Press-side solvents and 1
1
1
-»
^
3
3
i>
1
c
'E
o
3
3)
X
OS
I
1
X
a
c
'£
TO
1
1
d
E
5
E
1
i
i
=
1
?
0)
%
±
8
1
•o
u>
in
CO
-9
E
1
^
CM
35
D
I
CM
IO
f~
T—
s
T—
CM
O
CM
CM"
s
CD
CD_
T—
00
in
CO
00
0
CO
CO
o
JZ
s
?
m
1
CO
oo
CM
T—
T— •
?
o>
o
CO
s
in
cr
CO
1
!^
oo
CO
oo
1
f)
1
oo
o
CD
)
CO
in
3
8
IO
o
CM"
cl
2
D
r>
N
8
1
» Hydrocarbons - low molecular 1
weiaht
XJ
*—
o>
LO
CM
O
in
0
CO
O5
CM
j^
cli
§
in
oo
CO
CM
CO
CM
*
CD
CM
Alcohols
CO
^-
co
in
o
T—
0
E
£
0
10
CO
IO
oo
CO
o
IO
CM
IO
in
X—
0
o
in
IO
CO
cc
o
•
M
O
CO
N
IO
IO
in
CD
CD
CM
00
-
"*
in
CM
» Hydrocarbons - low molecular
weiaht
*—
CD
O
O
CM
^
0
•*
CM
CO
0
CM
CM
'""
0
CM
^
O
Isiloxanes
<—
CD
0
O
CM
t^"
O
a
CO
o
SI
"
o
CM
^
0
HAmides or nitrogenous
comoounds
r-
co
o
o
o
a
CO
0
CM
CM
0
CM
^
O
HOraanic acids or salts
30
§
CM
in"
o
T—
O5
CO
CM"
-
CM
CD_
CO
in
oo
co_
oo
co_
§
0_
.(Alcohols
LO
£
O
cS
CO
CM
o
'
'
o
^
CD
CM
O
HPolvol derivatives
t—
10
o
CM
0
CM
CM
0
CM
O
[Amides or nitrogenous
comoounds
j
o
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
loraanophosphorous compounds
10
CM
CO
0
f
O)
CO
CO
0
-
CO
10
o
Pigments - organometallic
'
,
8
o_
T—
CO
o
N-
OJ
IO
O
Pigments - inorganic
-
oo
oo
OJ
CM
o
Pigments - organometallic
-
•,
CD
CO
0)
CM
0
Pigments - organic
-
V.V.
CO
CO
o
Pigments - organometallic
3
CO
oo
o
o
'c
n
i
4
J
b.
M
3
O
oo"
Udded: Propanol
S
IO t-
LO
CO 0)
>
CO Y-
00
^
"m
0
lo
_o
•s
Q)
•*-•
^
CO
o
a.
Q.
CO
'o
cu
CO
CO
CO
I/Added: 2-Methoxy-1-Dropanoi
a Shaded areas indicate where
O
£
a.
_0
n
c
0)
o
(0
I
ffi
Q.
X
Ul
"55
o
Q.
O
O
O
_
o.
E
(0
(O
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-45
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.6 GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section describes the exposure assessment of the general population living near a
flexographic printing facility to the chemicals in the flexographic ink formulations. The
general population is anyone not directly involved in the flexographic printing process
who lives near a printing facility. These people may breathe air containing small amounts
of vapors from evaporation of products at the facility.
The amount of exposure to these chemicals by the general population depends on several
factors:
• distance from the facility
• the actual route of contact (e.g., inhalation)
• the length of time the chemical has been hi the environment
• the way in which the chemical moves through the environment
Therefore, measuring internal facility contaminant levels may not be sufficient to
determine significant general population exposure. Certain types of controls may move
the chemical from inside the plant to the outdoors. It is also important to note that some
chemicals may have a more significant impact on a specific segment of the general
population, such as children, than on a typical worker.
Preliminary modeling was performed for both peak and average exposure. Short-term
effects, such as eye irritation, are best predicted by peak exposure estimates, since the
effect occurs within a short period of exposure. Long-term effects, such as
carcinogenicity, are better predicted through average exposures because the effects depend
on the cumulative exposure of an individual. The analysis also sought to determine
whether the aggregate releases of facilities within a model region result in higher
exposures for the general population compared to the releases from a single flexographic
facility.
General Population Exposure Methodology
For this exposure assessment, it was assumed that fugitive and stack releases from a
flexographic printing facility mixed with outside air. The resulting air concentrations
, depend on weather conditions. Stagnant conditions will not move vapors away quickly,
so local concentrations of the chemical will be higher near the plant. Windy conditions
will transport vapors away faster, thereby reducing local concentrations.
This assessment addressed acute and chronic exposure concerns for two exposure
scenarios: local and regional. The local scenario considered a single facility in normal
operation that has certain releases affecting a specific area and specific local population.
The regional scenario considered the cumulative impact of all flexographic printing
facilities within a region; in this case, Chicago, Illinois was used to model regional
exposure. In both cases a model facility approach was used to calculate generic releases
and environmental concentrations.
For the local exposure scenario, two models that were developed as regulatory models by
the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation15 were run to separately model the peak and average
exposures. A short-term model, the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-46
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
model was initially used to calculate peak exposures in order to determine acute risk. A
long-term model, the Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT) model, was used to
determine average exposures and chronic risk. When results for the peak ISCST model
were used to develop acute risk values, the results indicated that there is an insignificant
likelihood of acute effects within the general population from any of the three ink systems.
Therefore, the final analysis only considers chronic risk, which was determined by
calculating average exposure with the ISCLT model.
Local Exposure Methodology
A model facility was used to estimate local exposure by determining a chemical s air
concentration at a specified distance from the printing facility. San Bernardino, California,
was used for the model because the weather conditions there result in the highest average
concentrations of pollutants around the model facility of any of the approximately 500
weather stations in the United States.14 The average concentrations around San Bernardino
are within an order of magnitude of concentrations expected anywhere else in the country.
That is, if the San Bernardino average concentration were estimated as 10 /*g/m3, then the
average concentration anywhere else in the country would be between 1 and 10 /xg/m3.
To determine the long-term, local, general population exposure, EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics used an implementation of ISCLT in the Graphical Exposure
Modeling System (GEMS).16 Appendix 3-G presents the input parameters used in the
model.
The air concentration at 100 meters from a facility is often assumed for exposure
modeling, because this is close enough to the release site so that the concentration is
conservatively high (concentrations usually lessen with distance), but far enough away that
a residential population could reasonably be expected to be present. To obtain the
concentration at 100 meters, a special polar grid was entered into the model. Distances
from the facility of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 1,000 meters were specified, forming
concentric circles (i.e., rings) on the grid. These rings, along with compass points, were
then used to define arc-shaped areas, or sectors. The air dispersion model took three
calculations per sector to obtain average air concentrations of chemical vapors. Finally,
the compass point with the highest cumulative (i.e., stack plus fugitive) concentration at
100 meters was used to determine general population exposure. The model indicates
whether a person at this distance would be exposed, but offers no estimate of the number
of people that would be exposed.
From the average concentration in the air, estimated inhalation exposures for an individual
can be calculated in different ways, depending on the toxicity factor of the modeled
chemical. For the flexographic ink chemicals, the toxicity factors indicated the need for
Average Daily Dose (ADD) and Average Daily Concentration (ADC) estimates for use
in non-cancer chronic risk calculations.
The formulas for ADD and ADC are as follows:
ADD (mg/kg-day) - [(C)(IR)(ED)(1 mg/1000 ^g)]/t(BW)(AT)]
ADC (mg/m3) = [(C)(ED)(mg/1000Mg)]/(AT)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-47
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
where
C =
IR =
ED =
BW
AT
chemical concentration in air from air dispersion modeling (ug/m3)
inhalation rate (mVday)
exposure duration (days): for residential exposures, the average hours per
day spent at the house multiplied by the average years of residency. This
factor includes considerations for the average time spent inside, outside, and
vacation away from the house.
average body weight (kg)
average time of exposure/residency (days)
Appendix 3-G demonstrates how the parameter values were calculated and presents their
underlying assumptions and references.
Regional Exposure Methodology
The regional scenario provides insight into the overall impact of releases from all of the
flexographic printing facilities in an area to that area's general population. This approach
permits the estimation of the cumulative exposures resulting from all of the flexographic
printers in an area. The total residential population exposed to flexographic ink chemicals
was not available, because the locations of all the flexographic printing facilities across the
country were not known.
The regional scenario was partially modeled using facilities located in the six-county
metropolitan area around Chicago, Illinois, to provide an example of cumulative
exposures. Within this area, the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
reported six companies with a total of 222 flexographic presses in a land area of 3 717
square miles. The 1995 population of the area was approximately 7,500 000 I7 The model
assumed that all of these printers used the same printing formulation at the same time The
average concentration of pollutants for the Chicago area was then calculated using local
weather data by means of the BOXMOD model, also implemented in GEMS.16
Although a region with many facilities of a given industry might have cumulative
exposures greater than the local exposure estimate, that was not the case here Instead
the relatively small number of flexographic printing facilities within the large land area
meant that the regional exposure values were uniformly only half to a third of the exposure
levels calculated at 100 meters from an isolated facility. Because the risks from the
regional results were insignificant, complete regional modeling was deemed unnecessary
and separate results are not reported in this CTSA.
General Population Exposure Limitations and Uncertainty
There is no one value that can be used to describe exposure. Not only is uncertainty
inherent in both the parameters and assumptions used in estimating exposure but the
effects possible within a population are variable. Sources of exposure uncertainty include
the following:
• the accuracy with which the model facility used in the assessment characterizes an
actual facility;
• estimated exposure levels from averaged data and modeling in the absence of
measured, site-specific data; .
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-48
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
• data limitations in the Environmental Air Release Assessment (the release values
are inputs for the general population modeling);
• the accuracy with which the models and assumptions represent the situation being
assessed, and the extent to which the models have been validated or verified; and
• parameter value uncertainty, including measurement error, sampling (or survey)
error, parameter variability, and professional judgment.
EPA's Guidelines for Exposure Assessment document defines and describes how risk (or
exposure) descriptors are used to provide information about the position of an exposure
estimate in the distribution of possible outcomes.18 One of four descriptors might be used,
depending on the type and quality of data used in the analysis:
• central tendency
• high-end
• bounding
• what-if
In an ideal exposure analysis, all data would have both a value and some information about
the associated probability distribution. If all data are based on average or median
estimates, the analysis would be termed "central tendency," since it represents exposures
that would typically be encountered. If all data are based on an exposure expected to be
larger than that experienced by 90 percent of the population, the analysis is described as
"high-end." An alternate descriptor is that the data represent "bounding" exposures; i.e.,
calculated exposures are higher than any expected actual exposures.
In some analyses, however, probability data are not available for each piece of
information. In these cases, data are based on a set of circumstances (without indication
of how probable that circumstance is). Such analyses are known as "what-if scenarios."
Because, along with other factors, the probability of a flexographic facility being similar
to that of our model facility could not be determined, the exposure analysis in this CTSA
is considered a "what-if scenario."
General Population Exposure Results
Table 3-H.l in Appendix 3-H presents fugitive and stack chemical concentrations 100
meters from the model facility for each chemical category and press-side solvent or
additive. Table 3-H.2 in Appendix 3-H presents the Average Daily Dose (ADD) and
Average Daily Concentration (ADC) for the general population (residential, 100 meters
from the facility).
Tables 3 11 and 3.12, excerpts from Tables 3-H.l and 3-H.2, present general population
exposure data for Solvent-based Ink #S2 at Site 10. These tables are included in the text
to show the format of the data and to indicate the magnitude of general population
exposure..
General population exposure quantities depend on many of the same variables affecting
environmental releases and occupational exposures. As a result, general population
exposure results are affected in the same manner that environmental release and
occupational exposure results are affected: by the volatility of the inks, ink consumption,
press speed, and the use of press-side solvents and additives.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-49
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
The general population exposure estimates show solvent-based inks as having the highest
ADD/ADC values of the three ink systems. This indicates that the higher fugitive
emissions from solvent-based inks outweigh the decrease in stack emissions resulting from
the use of oxidizers on solvent-based presses. There is no clear difference between the
ADD/ADC values of water-based and UV-cured inks, but they are both significantly lower
than those for solvent-based inks.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-50
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-51
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
3.7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Risk characterization integrates hazard and exposure information into quantitative and
qualitative expressions of risk. This final step in a risk assessment enables experts to make
a realistic estimate of risks to specific groups of people who are exposed to chemicals
analyzed in earlier steps of the risk assessment. The accompanying text box describes how
chemicals are grouped into categories of clear, possible, or low/negligible risk.
Defining Risk Levels
Clear risk indicates that there is an inadequate level of safety for the chemical in question
under the assumed exposure conditions, and that adverse effects can be expected. A
chemical is placed in this category if it has a Hazard Quotient (HQ) (see Note 1 below)
greater than 10, or a Margin of Exposure (MOE) (see Note 2) that is equal to or less than
10 or 100.(depending on the type of available data). If the chemical does not have a HQ
or MOE, but instead was analyzed by the structure activity team (SAT), the chemical is
considered to be of clear risk if it has a moderate or high hazard rating (see Note 3). Table
3.13 summarizes the HQ, MOE, and SAT criteria.
Possible risk indicates that the level of safety is slightly less than desirable and that the
chemical may produce adverse effects at the expected exposure level. A chemical is
designated as a possible risk if it has a HQ between 1 and 10, or a MOE that either is
between 10 and 100 or 100 and 1,000. A SAT-analyzed chemical is of possible risk if it
poses a low-moderate hazard (see Note 3).
Low or negligible risk indicates that there is an adequate level of safety at the expected
exposure level. A chemical of low or negligible risk has a HQ less than 1, or a MOE that
is greater than 100 or 1,000. An SAT-analyzed chemical is of low or negligible risk if it has
a low hazard rating, (see Note 3).
Note 1. A Hazard Quotient (HQ) is the ratio of the average daily dose (ADD) to the
Reference Dose (RfD) or Reference Concentration (RfC), where RfD and RfC are defined
as the lowest daily human exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of
non-cancer toxic effects during a lifetime. The more the HQ exceeds 1, the greater the
level of concern. HQ values below 1 imply that adverse effects are not likely to occur.
Note 2. A Margin of Exposure (MOE) is calculated when a RfD or RfC is not available.
It is the ratio of the NOAEL or LOAEL of a chemical to the estimated human dose or
exposure level. The NOAEL is the level at which no significaht effects are observed. The
LOAEL is the lowest concentration at which effects are observed. The MOE indicates the
magnitude by which the NOAEL or LOAEL exceeds the estimated human dose or
exposure level. High MOE values (e.g., greater than 100 for a NOAEL-based MOE or
greater than 1,000 for a LOAEL-based MOE) imply a low level of risk. As the MOE
decreases, the level of risk increases.
Note 3. The SAT provided hazard levels based on analog date and/or structure activity
considerations, in which characteristics of the chemicals were estimated in part based on
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-52
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
similarities with chemicals that have been studied more thoroughly. SAT-based systemic
toxicity concerns were ranked according to the following criteria:
« high concern - evidence of adverse effects in humans, or conclusive evidence of
severe effects in animal studies
• moderate concern - suggestive evidence of toxic effects in animals; or close
structural, functional, and/or mechanistic analogy to chemicals with known toxicity
• low concern - chemicals not meeting the above criteria.
Table 3.13 Criteria for Risk Levels
Level of concern
Clear risk
Possible risk
Low or negligible risk
Hazard
Quotient a
>10
1to10
<1
Margin of Exposure"
NOAEL0
1 to 10
> 10 to 100
>100
LOAELd
1 to 100
> 100 to
1,000
> 1,000
SAT Hazard
Rating
moderate or
high
low-
moderate
low
a Hazard Quotient = ADD / RfD (RfC).
b Margin of Exposure = NOAEL (LOAEL) / Dose or Exposure Level.
c No Observed Adverse Effect Level.
d Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
Risk Characterization Limitations and Uncertainty
Estimated doses assume 100% absorption. The actual absorption rate, however, may be
significantly lower, especially for dermal exposures to relatively polar compounds. This
assessment used the most relevant toxicological potency factor available for the exposure.
under consideration.
Dermal exposure values to workers should be regarded as bounding estimates. All other
exposure estimates are "what-if" estimates.
Occupational Risk Results
Chemical Categories of Clear Risk
Chemical categories that present a clear occupational risk for systemic and developmental
risks to flexographic plant workers are shown in Tables 3.14 through 3.17. The type of
exposure route (inhalation or dermal), the applicable formulation, and the chemical's
function in the ink are listed for each formulation. For a presentation of the occupational
risk data for systemic and developmental risks via dermal and inhalation pathways, see
Appendices 3-1 through 3-N.
Alcohols were the most common category of clear risk found in the solvent-based and
water-based ink formulations. Amides or nitrogenous compounds in water-based ink
formulations were also common in presenting systemic risks to workers. Acrylated
polyols formed the most prevalent category of clear risk in the UV-cured formulations,
based on toxicological data. Based on SAT reports, several other categories, including
acrylated polymers and amides or nitrogenous compounds, presented a concern for
developmental effects.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-53
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
CM
8
1
• n
I
i
w
O
CO
§>
I
o
"ra
i
a>
u
O
O
«
b:
"re
.2
i
I
o
1
Ijj
C
c
.0
i
u.
h.
•2
o
II 0
i
g
0
r
11 03 1
•c
0
| Chemical categ
I
>».
o
a>
o
1 =
£fi
[Exposure
1
i
c
•o
0)
(S
Solvent-b
«•-•
1
C
«—-
<
[Alcohols
a
jij
Inhalation
, .
i
u
§
j=
J:
_
<
1
S3
l .
1
0
CO
'JE
.e,
^_
<
[Alcohols
u
S.
1
D
t .
1
O
CO
"c
CD
D
E.
cf
CD
S*
m
2*
0
Alkyl acetates
c
't
c
LJ_
..
_"c
"c
Q)
1
O
i
o
CO
<
Alcohols
o
S
V)
Inhalation
a
s.
5
O)
1
§
"o
E
Hydrocarbons — 1
. c
u
a
a.
Alcohols
S3
Developmen
'I
|
"3
•L*
<
Alcohols
Systemic
D
0
I
0
CO
^
Alcohols
S3
Developmen
,
•
-*-*
-2
o
o
O
S3
c
V
c?
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
(0
(0
JQ
0)
£
(0
o
D)
O
o>
O
I
o
O
.*
(0
£
15
re
Q.
u
n
J2
O
10
T^
CO
»
A
n
||
I
.£
Function
"
g
5^
1=
1
1
1
^
Chemical categories v
-
^
•-
%
o
a
1
1
2
u
i
X
g
il
c
•o
0)
£
•2
-1
Solvent
a
c
1
j
c
5
3
3
LJ_
0)
5.
5
<
•c
c
1
Amides or nitrogenous <
•»
i
i
Solvent
i
•§
"3
-Q
<
Ethylene glycol ethers
Solvent
0)
a>
E
•s
JD
<
"c
x:
o
1
C^
"c
r1
5
3
3
U-
0)
Q.
3
3
<
"C
.'C
£
Amides or nitrogenous
•»
i
Solvent
•2
f
"3
•°
<
Ethylene glycoT ethers
Colorant
•i
0}
CJ)
CO
s
J
'
1
E
1 Amides or nitrogenous
.c
a
•&
CO
f
c
u
5
CO
ca
&*
•3
_•
<
1
1 Ethylene glycol ethers
i
as an SAT-based concern
e3.13.
o> n
"o "~
c .c
CO *""
il
c ^
co £
1?
Is ™
O> OT
0 '=
8g
a Based on tox
"Criteria for cl
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-55
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
§
w
.2
o
O)
£
3
"m
p
I
Q>
O
§
o
CO
Q.
O
O
O
re
CO
T"
co'
.2
i
o
2
s
CO
'I
§>
•3
-
8
,'i
S
[j
1
21
i
co
lu
re
J3
_
.0)
CO
5
O
E
.ffi
§,
CO
JO
CD
Q.
.O
§
CD
Q
§ o
g
CD
Q
03
c
CD
Q.
_O
CD
I
co
CD
Q
conce
co
CO .
TO T
co w
CO _0>
73 JQ
^) CO
O *~
II
1 g.
a 2
co Q-
73
ro.co
II
-2 if
C ,0
ii
CO 'C
m o
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-56
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
co
i
•o
c
«
e>T
=tt
co
•o
£
£
co
.2
o
ra
31
o
&
o
a>
u
o
o
^
CO
E
"«
o
|
§
O
re
0)
O
co
u
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-57
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Most of the chemical categories presenting a clear occupational risk in solvent-based ink
formulations are solvents; many chemical categories presenting clear concern for water-
based inks serve as solvents, dispersants, vehicles, and buffers. For UV-cured ink
formulations, most categories presenting a clear occupational risk serve as slip additives
reactive diluents, oligomers, colorants, plasticizers, and curing agents.
Range of Occupational Risk Levels by Chemical Category and Ink System
Table 3.18 summarizes the range of occupational risk levels (negligible concern because
exposure is not anticipated, low concern, possible concern, or clear concern) for the three
ink systems via dermal and inhalation routes. Because concern levels for systemic and
developmental risk were very similar for each chemical category, the ranges for the two
types of risk were combined. These ranges were based on toxicological data only except
for two chemical categories found in UV-cured inks: amides or nitrogenous compounds
and aromatic esters.
Chemical categories within an ink system showed variation in the level of risk (e g
ethylene glycol ethers in water-based inks ranged from no exposure to clear concern)'
Variation also occurred among ink systems for certain chemical categories (e.g., certain
alcohols in solvent- and water-based inks presented clear concern, but alcohols in UV-
cured inks presented negligible concern). Such variations were due to differences in
physical properties between chemicals in a category and/or differences in percent
composition of an ink formulation.
Summary of Number of Chemicals of Clear Occupational Risk by Product Line and Site
Table 3.19 summarizes of the number of chemicals with clear occupational risk concern
Solvent- and water-based ink systems each averaged 16 chemicals with clear risk concern
(based on both toxicological and SAT-based data). Chemicals with clear concern
comprised 28% of the total number of chemicals for water-based inks, and 23% for
solvent-based inks. Two of the three UV-cured inks had relatively few chemicals with
clear concern; however, UV-cured Ink #U2 had 21 chemicals with clear concern (30%)
It should be noted that these tallies do not necessarily give a full picture of risk; because
it is not possible to correlate the nature and severity of potential adverse effects on an
aggregate product line level, the comparison shown above should serve only as a crude
comparative figure.
The number of chemicals in an ink product line was determined by adding the numbers
of base chemical ingredients and press-side solvents and additives for each formulation
within a product line, and then summing the totals for all five formulations. Using this
method, a chemical may be counted more than once if it were found in more than one
formulation. For example, ethanol, used in three formulations within a product line, is
considered to be three "chemicals." However, if a chemical presented clear risk for both
dermal and inhalation pathways in a single formulation, it was counted only once.
Similarly, if a chemical presented a clear risk for both systemic and developmental effects
it was counted only once. '
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-58
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
UV-cured |
TJ
W
re
JQ
,8
i
T3
0)
(0
re
o
olvent-!
CO
Ichemical category
0
•
t
O
••••'•'s
'
O
--
' .
E
"o
Q.
73
CO
£
o
CL
73
(D
CO
lAcrylic acid polymers
O
W
9
t
o
A
•
t
||Alcohols
f
A
•
t
|Alkyl acetates
1
8
1
1
E
0
^p
^
O
« Amides or nitrogenous
compounds
oderate concern (SAT)
E
o
-£•
•
t
O
'
"'
s %
^p
t
0
lAromatic esters
™ ,
- -
5
^p
O
sv.
-
HAromatic ketones
o
f
o
o
0)
.CD
.C
iTi
^
O
^
o
.92
« Hydrocarbons - high me
weight
0
1
ro
3
0)
Hydrocarbons - low mol
weight
O
A
^p
•
o
[inorganics
O
0
•• :
loiefin polymers
-
0
0
t
O
^F
1
O
"ra
0
n:
o
'c
a
O
i
1
0
-
-
O
73
O
Q.
Iorganophosphorous co
O
w
73
lorganotitanium compoi
•
O
0
•
O
A
0
O
Ipigments - inorganic
O
\
O
o
[Pigments - organic
•
O
t
0
w
o
o
Ipigments - organometa
O
O
Ipolyol derivatives
-
9
^h
t
O
^
I
Ipropylene glycol ethers
t
O
O
CO
D;
O
0
A
t
O
A
4
t
o
jlsiloxanes
Q.
_O
§2
o
Q
T3
re
o
0)
73
Q)
C
!S
o
tn
c
re
Q.
I
O
0)
D)
i
00
T^
CO
re
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-59
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.19 Summary of Number of Chemicals with Clear Occupational
Risk, by Product Line and Site
Ink type
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
UV-cured
Product
Line
#S1
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W3
#W4
#111
#U2
#U3
Site
9B
5
7
10
4
1
2
3
9A
11
6
8
Total
Number of
Chemicals3
63
70
71
75
43
48
62
56
66
48
70
46
Toxicological
Dataa-b
Number
15
14
15
17
16
13
15
13
18
1
16
0
Percent
24%
20%
21%
23%
37%
27%
24%
23%
27%
2%
23%
0%
SAT Dataa-b
Number
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
5
9
Percent
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
13%
7%
20%
Total3'"
Number
17
14
15
17
16
16
15
13
18
7
21
9
Percent
27%
20%
21%
23%
37%
33%
24%
23%
27%
15%
30%
20%
Rank
5
10
9
8
1
2
6
7
4
12
3
11
• Chemicals are counted more than once if found in more than one formulation within the same product line. The number
of chemicals may also include site-specific press-side solvents or additives.
b Includes clear risk for systemic or developmental effects via inhalation or dermal routes.
Occupational Risks From Press-side Solvents and Additives
The use of additives increased the occupational risk for many of the solvent- and water-
based ink formulations. In particular, propanol and propylene glycol ethers in solvent-based
inks, and ammonia, propanol, isobutanol, and ethyl carbitol in water-based inks presented
possible or clear occupational risk in certain formulations. UV-cured inks typically do not
use any press-side additives. In the performance demonstrations, however, one additive was
used in UV-cured Ink #U2 (green).
Cancer Risks
Only a few ink formulations contained chemicals of carcinogenic concern. These included
Water-based Ink #W1 (Site4) and Water-based Ink #W2 (Site 1), which contained chemicals
shown to produce tumors in rodents following dermal and/or inhalation exposures. An
inorganic pigment found in every solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured ink system is
a possible carcinogen by the inhalation route of exposure. However, this compound, like
other possibly carcinogenic compounds used in this project, does not pose significant risk
because the exposure pathway for workers is different from that which results in
carcinogenic effects.
General Population Risk Results
Chemical Categories of Possible General Population Risk
Chemical categories that present a possible risk of systemic and developmental effects in the
general population are shown in Table 3.20. No categories present a clear risk to the
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-60
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
general population. For a presentation of the general population risk data for systemic and
developmental risks via inhalation, see Appendices 3-O and 3-P.
In the solvent-based and water-based ink product lines, alcohols found in Solvent-based Ink
#S2, Water-based Ink #W2, and Water-based Ink #W3 are the only category of possible
general population risk based on toxicological data. These alcohols serve as solvents in
these formulations. For the UV product lines, acrylated polyols in UV-cured Ink #U2,
serving as reactive diluents, are the only category of possible risk based on toxicological.
data. Based on SAT reports, propylene glycol ethers in Solvent-based Ink #S2, amides or
nitrogenous compounds in UV-cured Inks #U 1 and #U3, and acrylated polyols in UV-cured
Ink #U2 may present a risk to the general population.
Range of General Population Risk Risk Levels by Chemical Category and Ink System
Table 3.21 summarizes the range of general population risk levels for each of the three ink
systems. The range of concern levels for systemic and developmental risk are very similar
for each chemical category and were therefore combined in the table. These ranges are
based on toxicological data only, except for two chemical categories in UV-cured inks:
amides or nitrogenous compounds, and aromatic esters, which have SAT support.
Most of the chemical categories showed negligible general population risk because little
exposure was anticipated to the general population in the model, and no categories presented
a clear risk. Each of the three ink systems had one category with a possible risk to the
general population: alcohols in solvent- and water-based inks, and acrylated polyols in UV-
cured inks. Five additional categories hi water-based inks, three in solvent-based inks, and
one in UV-cured inks presented a low risk to the general population.
Summary of Number of Chemicals of Possible General Population Risk by Product Line
and Site
Table 3.22 summarizes the number of chemicals with a possible risk to the general
population, by product line and site. Very few chemical categories carry a possible risk for
the general population: alcohols in Solvent-based Ink #2 (Site 5), Water-based Ink #W2 (Site
1), and Water-based Ink #W3 (Sites 2 and 3), and acrylated polyols in UV-cured Ink #U2
(Site 6). The number of chemicals in a product line was determined by the same method
used for Table 3.19.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-61
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
o
I
o.
cu
O
fi
(7)
a.
cu
Q
73
C
ra
_o
Q)
W
iJ
.Q
(A
O
CL
£
(A
.2
o
O)
5
ra
O
"ra
to
I
O
ra
c
,~
c
_<
*
LL
^
H
A
01
CD
Q
'w
n
a
5
'i
(A
O
Q
D)
U
«
3
O
o
3
[(Exposure route
i
||Solvent-based Ink
:\"
: v
-
g
3
»
. •>
sS
••sV
%
^
; f
,_
•*&;
'<•.?
ts
*
V
^
Developmental
Inhalation
^
1C
U
r)
a
1*
3
>
5
P
2.
o
CO
0]
(!)
n
tfl
F
r
CO
8-
nC
•—
^
Alcohols
U
co"
1
V.
-*S
c
a
D
CO
_
c
ffl
o
I
CD
"CD
8
CO
cu
tu
o
CL
Developmental
Inhalation
^
%
:
T3
)
t
t
'}
3
-
%
"•
s
Systemic
-
"*
s
Developmental
Inhalation
CN
S
g
D
I
3
CD
0
CO
•—
^
Alcohols
Systemic
Developmental
Inhalation
fc
3
D
0
2
9
1
O
CO
.!—
5
Alcohols
Systemic
Developmental
Inhalation
t
D
1
5
9
••
-
Systemic
Developmental
Inhalation
3
£
D
3
O
Systemic
c
0
ts
c
u_
CD
Q.
1
<
^"
CO
CO
•a
c
ci
1
CO
o
c
cu
O)
2
c
o
D
D
Developmental
Inhalation
UV-cured Ink #U2
j_
cu
o
c
0
*i
5
co
s.
o
Q.
Acrylated
5
CO
••
-,
Developmental
Inhalation
UV-cured Ink #U3
Systemic
^
CD
O
r
o
CD
?
.Q
<
^
CO
_co
o
a.
•a
2
o
r
c
Q
Q.
|
<
P
01
co
TJ
r
compou
CO
0
CD
CO
p
c
0
CO
CU
•D
E
Developmental
Inhalation
.2
CO
3
a.
a.
S
cu
o>
cu
£
£
to
•c
CO
CD
0
B
CU
to
cu
Q.
HL
chemica
o
CO
8
-------
CHAPTERS
RISK
a
a
Q.
0)
S
Q
•D
n
_
o
•o
o
o
(0
E
c
o
I
Q.
O
O.
S
o>
O
CO
co
r-
UV-cured ii
•JS
•o
(U
n
i
c
i
CO
R
,1,
C
>
C
V)
Hchemical category
O
^
•
0
, -,-, -,
-
-
'
>"* ^
0
™ss
'
f
^
1
o
Q.
T3
TO
1
CO
o
"5
Q.
1
|
CO
a
1
a
f.
o
o
9
t
i
O
^J
*
V
^
Iklcohols
••
••••
-,,
^
Iklkyl acetates
^~*
o.
c
irate concer
•*•* "ai
> >, S.
S> o '5
i & CO
« o ™
ll »1
.M E (D •—
« a> t; Q.
'""o » TO
Q. C (0 ~
a The ranges of systemic and develo
this table represent the compounds i
"Key: O = negligible concern becau
c Shaded areas indicate where data c
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-63
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
Table 3.22 Summary of Number of Chemicals with Possible General Population
Risk, by Product Line and Site
Ink type
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Product
Line
#S1
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W3
#W4
#U1
#U2
#U3
Site
9B
5
7
10
4
1
2
3
9A
11
6
, 8
Number of Chemicals
With Possible Riska-b
0
3
0 ; .
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
Number of Total
Chemicals b
63
70
71
75
43
48
62
56.
66
48
70
46
Percent
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
b Includes possible risk for systemic or developmental effects via inhalation.
Chemicals are counted more than once if found in more than one formulation within a product line.
The number of chemicals includes site-specific press-side solvents and additives used in the
performance demonstrations.
General Population Risks from Press-Side Solvents and Additives
The use of press-side solvents and additives increased the general population risk for many
of the solvent- and water-based inks formulations. In particular, propanol and propylene
glycol ethers in solvent-based inks; and ammonia, propanol, isobutanol, and ethyl carbitol
in water-based inks, presented low risk to the general population in certain formulations.
Cancer Risks
Water-based ink #W2 (Site 1) contained a chemical that could expose the general
population by the inhalation route; there is evidence of this chemical producing tumors in
one species following inhalation exposure. Several of the carcinogenic chemicals
identified were of negligible general population risk, because incidental exposure of the
general population to these chemicals was not expected.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-64
September 2000.
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK
REFERENCES
1. Cothern, C. Richard, William A. Coniglio, and William L. Marcus. "Estimating Risk to Human
Health," Environmental Science and Technology. 20:111-116,1986.
2. Thayer, Ann M. "Alar Controversy Mirrors Differences in Risk Perceptions," Chemical and
Engineering News. August 28, 1989, pp. 7-13.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Not dated. "8e Submission Criteria for
Determination of Level of Concern." Internal memorandum, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
4. Wagner, P.M., Nabholz, J.V., and Kent, R.J. "The New Chemicals Process at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA): Structure-activity Relationships for Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment," Toxicol. Lett. 79: 67-73, 1995.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum from Jennifer Seed to Terry O'Bryan
entitled "Criteria for 8(e) CAP Submissions." March 25, 1994.
6. Reilly, B. "Memorandum from Breeda Reilly to CEB Staff: Guidance for Preparing PMN
Engineering Reports." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 4, 1994.
7. American National Can Company, anonymous source. Personal communication with James Rea,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specific date unknown.
8. Warlick, Thomas, Graphic Packaging Corporation. Personal communication with James Rea,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 20, 1997.
9. Serafano, John, Western Michigan University. Personal communication with James Rea, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1997, specific date unknown.
10. Fehrenbacher, M.C. and A.A. Hummel. "Evaluation of the Mass Balance Model Used by EPA
for Estimating Inhalation Exposure to New Chemical Substances," American Industrial Hygiene
Association, submitted for publication.
11. Engel, A.J. and B. Reilly. Evaporation of Pure Liquids from Open Surfaces. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Pre-Publication Draft.
12. Chemical Engineering Branch, EPA. Manual for the Preparation of Engineering Assessments.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1991.
13. Brennan, Thomas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Personal communication with Conrad
Flessner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1998.
14. General Sciences Corporation. Exposure Screening Manual (Draft). Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. GSC-TR-32-88-015. May 10, 1988.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) User's Guide.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450-4-92-008a. March
1992.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-65
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 3
17.
18.
RISK
16. General Sciences Corporation. Graphical Exposure Modeling System, GEMS, User's Guide 1991
GSC-TR-32-91-001.
Kaleel, Rob, State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Personal communication with
Conrad Flessner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 23, 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment; Notice.
Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, pp. 22888-22938 Mav
29, 1992. •
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
3-66
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Chapter 4: Performance
CHAPTER CONTENTS
4.1 METHODOLOGY • 4-4
Methodology for On-site Performance Demonstrations 4-4
Tests Performed on Samples from Performance Demonstrations and Laboratory Runs 4-5
Inks Used forthe Study 4-11
Substrates Used for the Tests 4-11
Image and Plates Used for the Tests 4-12
Types of Printing Performed 4-12
Limitations of the Performance Demonstrations 4-12
Methodology for Laboratory Runs 4-13
4.2 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS —
SOLVENT-BASED AND WATER-BASED INKS 4-17
Adhesive Lamination — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-17
Block Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based inks 4-18
CIE L*a*b* — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-18
Coating Weight— Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-20
Density — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-23
Dimensional Stability — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-25
Gloss — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-26
Heat Resistance/Heat Seal — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-27
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-28
Image Analysis — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-29
Jar Odor — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-30
Mottle/Lay — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-32
Opacity — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-34
Rub Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-34
Tape Adhesiveness — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-35
Trap — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks 4-36
Highlights of Performance Results for Solvent-Based and Water-Based Inks 4-38
4.3 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS — UV-
CURED INKS 4-38
Block Resistance — UV-cured Inks 4-39
CIE L*a*b* — UV-cured Inks 4-40
Coating Weight — UV-cured Inks 4-41
Coefficient of Friction — UV-cured Inks 4-4:
Density — UV-cured Inks 4'43
Dimensional Stability — UV-cured Inks 4-4^
Gloss — UV-cured Inks 4'44
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — UV-cured Inks
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Image Analysis — UV-cured Inks 4.45
Jar Odor — UV-cured Inks 4.47
Mottle/Lay — UV-cured Inks 4.43
Opacity — UV-cured Inks 4.49
Rub Resistance — UV-cured Inks 4-50
Tape Adhesiveness — UV-cured Inks ' 4.50
Trap — UV-cured Inks ; 4_50
Uncured Residue — UV-cured Inks 4-51
Summary of Performance Test Results for UV-Cured Inks 4-51
Technological Development in UV-cured Inks 4-52
4.4 SITE PROFILES 4.54
Site 1: Water-based lnk#W2 on OPP 4.55
Site 2: Water-based lnk#W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA 4.57
Site 3: Water-based lnk#W3on LDPE and PE/EVA ,. 4.59
Site 4: Water-based Ink #W1 on OPP 4.51
Site 5: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA . 4-62
Site 6: UV lnk#U2 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP 4-64
Site 7: Solvent-based lnk#S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA 4-66
Site 8: UV lnk#U3 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP 4-68
Site 9A: Water-based lnk#W4 on OPP 4-70
Site 9B: Solvent-based Ink #S1 on OPP 4-71
Site 10: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on OPP 4.73
Site 11: UV lnk#U1 on LDPE (no slip) 4.75
REFERENCES 4.77
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the data collection that was done to evaluate performance of the different ink
ystems, and presents highlights of the results.
METHODOLOGY: The methodology of the data collection and tests for this CTSA is summarized in Section
.1. The methodology section describes the performance demonstrations, the laboratory tests that were
performed on all the ink/substrate combinations, and the specific sites at which the demonstrations were
•un (The complete performance demonstration methodology can be found in Appendix 4-A, and other
nformation relevant to the methodology is in Appendix 4-B through 4-D.) Western Michigan University
conducted separate laboratory runs on all substrates using water-based and solvent-based inks. The use
of a single press under controlled conditions was intended to provide some consistency and a basis of
comparison for the results of the performance demonstrations. Highlights of the tests that were performed
or the laboratory runs are discussed in Section 4.2, and more detailed information is provided in Appendix
4-L.
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS: The printed substrates completed at the
jerformance demonstrations were sent to Western Michigan University, which tested each ink/substrate
;ombination. A total of 18 tests were performed to measure a wide range of capabilities for solvent-based,
water-based and U V-cured ink systems. The performance demonstration test results for solvent-based and
water-based inks are summarized in Section 4.2. Because the technology for UV-cured inks was still in a
developmental phase at the time of the performance demonstrations (November 1996 — March 1997), the
results for UV-cured inks are presented separately in Section 4.3. To provide a more current picture of UV-
cured inks, The section also discusses some of the relevant advances that have been made in UV
:echnology'since the performance demonstrations were completed.
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION SITE PROFILES: Demonstration runs were done at 11 sites, which
are numbered to protect confidentiality. Section 4.4 provides detailed data about each of the volunteer
printing facilities. For each facility, the type of ink used, control equipment, annual production, operating
nours, and average production run are provided. Details are also provided about the presses on which the
demonstrations were run.
HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS: At the end of Sections 4.3 and 4.4, readers will find brief summaries of the
overall test results. This study was set up to explore a wide range of characteristics and interactions between
inks and substrates that can be important in flexographic printing. The demonstrations were all performed
by different press operators at different flexographic facilities under widely varying circumstances, and
consequently the test scores show considerable variation over both ink systems and substrates, and often
between individual ink product lines as well. That is, they show the kinds of differences that are typically
encountered in the real world of flexographic printing. Such variances indicate that printers need to give
careful consideration to a variety of different factors in determining acceptable quality fortheir facility. These
factors—among them cost, health and environmental risks, energy use, and pollution prevention
opportunities—are discussed in other chapters of this CTSA.
CAVEATS
The use of the terms quality and acceptable print are highly subjective. What one printer finds acceptable
and salable in a printed product may be considered scrap by another printer. Thus, caution must always be
used when making statements about what constitutes acceptable printing and high quality. ,
. i
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The Flexography Project Technical Committee (whose members are listed at the front of
this CTSA) developed this methodology to investigate the performance of solvent-based,
water-based, and UV-cured ink systems on three film substrates. The substrates that were
used are low-density polyethylene (LDPE), co-extruded polyethylene/ethyl vinyl acetate
(PE/EVA), and oriented polypropylene (OPP). The methodology involved two types of
data collection: performance demonstrations at 11 volunteer printing facilities, and
laboratory runs conducted at the printing facility of Western Michigan University.'
Methodology for On-site Performance Demonstrations
Ten commercial printing facilities in the United States, and a press manufacturer's pilot
line in Germany, volunteered to participate in this study. All 11 facilities donated press
time to print the appropriate ink/substrate combinations on wide-web presses.2 Each
ink/substrate combination was run on a standardized image in at least two of the facilities.
Table 4.1 lists the ink-substrate combinations run at each of the facilities. Four of the 12
sites used a solvent-based ink system, five used water-based, and three used UV-cured
Seven sites ran LDPE, six sites ran PE/EVA, and seven sites ran OPP.
Table 4.1 Ink System and Substrates Tested at Each Site
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Substratefsl
Site
LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP
LDPE
Site5
Site?
Site 9B
Site 10
Site 2
SiteS
Site 4
Site 1
Site 9A
Site6
Site 8
Site 11
During each demonstration, the press was run at production speeds (approximately 300 to
500 feet/min) for about two hours to produce up to 60,000 feet of printed product
Flexographic printing experts from Western Michigan University's (WMU) Department
of Paper and Printing Science and Engineering were present at all demonstration runs to
ensure consistent adherence to the methodology. At the completion of each demonstration,
the printed substrate was sent to Western Michigan University for analysis.
One facility, Site 9, ran two different inks at the same location and was separated into two performance
demonstrations (Sites 9A and 9B). This made a total of 12 "sites."
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-4
_
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
These press runs were intended to provide a "snapshot" of performance under actual
production conditions, rather than a tightly controlled experiment. The performance
demonstrations collected information about the real-world print quality issues associated
with different ink systems using different film substrates and printed on wide-web presses.
Additionally, information was collected for the cost, environmental and health risk, and
energy and natural resources analyses. (These issues are the focus of other chapters of this
CTSA.)
The complete performance demonstration methodology, background questionnaires, and
data collection sheets can be found in Appendices 4-A through 4-D. For more information
on the volunteer facilities, see Section 4.4, Site Profiles.
Tests Performed on Samples from Performance Demonstrations and Laboratory Runs
All the samples collected in both the performance demonstrations and the laboratory runs
were subjected to an extensive series of tests. A total of 18 different tests were conducted
to analyze a wide range of ink properties and inks' effects on substrates, focusing on
aspects that would be important to many flexographic printers. The purpose, procedure,
and interpretive information for each test are provided in Table 4.2. The inclusion of
laboratory runs allows comparative analysis about field performance. The results of these
tests are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, and the details of the laboratory tests can be
found in Appendix 4-E.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-5
September 2000
-------
Of
UJ
J2
(/>
i=
"S
c
o
1
I
Q.
Q)
«*^
•o
(0
£
3
•n
Q)
1
o_
oT
w
o
E-
Q.
CM
Tf
3.
J3
&
aflash
en for fo
h perfo
ratory
en for
ing a Datacolor Spectr
asurements were take
r locations during eac
monstration. For labor
urements were take
ured at three locatio
eas
eas
Usi
me
fou
de
me
me
..
i tf if i
2 Q. 3 TO O O> U)
-
CM
<5
J2
I
0>
tn
4
Th
sa
he in
after
inted
d
8*11,8
imi
J -i'E-2.^
S li= "O Q. Q.
i
»^
; °>
?I
-------
HI
o
o
u.
DC
ui
0.
•o
a)
c
o
o
1
S-
0)
•o
n
oT
Interpretation
T3
Procedure (detailed demonstration and
laboratory procedures described in Appe
4-E)a
Purpose
to
1
Results are expressed as the angle of inclination,
where high angle values indicate high resistance, or
friction, between the ink and film substrate. COF
values are relative and are used only as a reference
based on the needs of the final product.
c 2
COF was measured in the laboratory using ?
Instron tensile tester equipped with a friction
sled. The COF values were then converted
angle of inclination.
ro
l|il
•ft 5 U) LL
<0 0) 'Z O
Determines the r
printed object to
COF is importan
situations, low C
-So
§£
u c
It
U J=
Density is primarily a function of anilox roll volume
and the resulting thickness of the applied ink film.
Density fluctuations may be the result of changes in
ink viscosity and impression pressure.
ro
An X-Rite 418 densitometer measured the
amount of reflected light from the surface of
printed sample.
CO
•s
H-f
It
|Z
Q 0)
The measurements are reported on a scale from 0 to
100 (higher numbers indicating higher reflectivity).
These values have no units and are used only for
comparison purposes. Gloss is a function of ink
composition, ink film thickness, substrate, and, to a
lesser extent, how well the ink dries on the substrate.
The visual assessment of gloss is subjective.
ll5S -la
A Gardner Microgloss glossmeter shone a t
of light at a 60° angle onto the sample; the I
was reflected back onto a photoelectric cell
LDPE, gloss was measured for magenta, cy
blue, and green over a white ink backgroun
and also for white, green, and blue on clear
On PE/EVA, gloss was measured for mage
cyan, blue, and green on white film.
ro
E
O Q)
C !H
.0 S
8|£
§ 0 »
§11
iSl
(A
(fl
O
O
The test results are recorded as "pass" (no ink
transfer), or "fail" (transfer of ink). In the case of a
failure, the percent of ink transferred is evaluated
and recorded.
CD
A printed sample was folded on itself and
sandwiched between two pieces of aluminu
foil. This sandwich was heated to 400° F. /
the sample cooled back down, it was peelei
apart and checked for ink transfer.
ro o)
s: "0 c
Ic c"§ ^
0^-D « g>
£ 1 & £ 1
S? en S 5 "0
Measures the d
printed substrat
transfer when h
printed products
to extreme heat
and storage.
"a>
= s
2 $
•a .2 -a
III
2.
U
CO
Ul
O
O
o
_1
OQ
=>
tL
-------
UJ
o
a:
UJ
•o
QJ
O
W
£
•a
ra
£ US
•a
a>
o
o
a>
o
a.
CM
TIT
.22
.a
I
O
Interpretation
X
II "~
£
Procedure (detailed demonstration and
laboratory procedures described in Appe
4-E)«
II
I Purpose
ll (/> Q* •*-» c;
11 ^ JTT Jn *CO
The adhesion results of this test are expressed
"no" (no ink was removed) or a "yes" (some oft
was removed). If a "yes" is reported, the
approximate amount of ink removed is given as
percentage; the higher the percentage, the lowi
print quality. A "no" indicates that the ink maint
the integrity of its adhesion and flexibility when
exposed to cold conditions.
II t«_ *o
O-o C «- c
i- c co o 3'Soa)Sg«|^«g!t=
i- C
•8 „, o
55 JS! w
5^0
.H o re
O C .CO
"O C T^ ° C «-
nj d) •- ^ '-F ,= n ^
There is currently no industry standard for imag
detail. The data are only relative and can be us
for comparing the formation of the tones among
samples. The dot area and perimeter correspor
the spread of the ink and may indicate dot distoi
The test evaluates screened dot detail as used i
process color reproduction. Dot detail informatil
dependent on the wettability of the substrate,
impression pressure, viscosity, and cell volume
the anilox roll.
£
<- CO
The test was performed using high-resolutioi
optics, an RGB digital frame grabber, and a
computer with Image ProPlus Analysis softw
The average dot area and the average
perimeter of the printed dots were measured
and analyzed.
in -cT-o
*- CO c
E-S-g S-8
— 0) CO .£> o
Q> "D Q- TT O
£ C
«5£Sf
l-o-s^l
w o-g E §^
co E g.»« o
l£.i£^8
o> 'w^
n "<5
IS
-t--1
The results of this test are expressed both
quantitatively (on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0
signifying no odor and 5 signifying an unpleasar
offensive odor) and qualitatively (a comparative
description of the odor).
"O ^
r— i
A printed sample was placed in a glass jar ar
sealed. The jar was put into a 100°F oven foi
hours. It was removed, opened, and sniffed
immediately. The same procedure was
repeated with an unprinted sample of the
substrate as a control.
£c -QgStS
0 0 3 m 0 3
£ C "O d)"O ~°
1| Ifol
•0 •£ -0 J5 0 T3
c -S . 5-"c co c £
0) -Q = 'C CL~ Ji
Q-n J CL-C, 75 o
^gs >-§£ §
£-3 £ gr = «
|6«|S«S
Iplltl
1 2 « 8 a> -s2 B
S O S ^ 03 ±i C
0
•a
o
3
CM
a.
a>
CO
°p
UJ
O
O
o
m
u
OL
-------
ill
O
a:
o
LL
a:
01
a.
•o
a>
o
o
a.
5
c
m
1"
•o
o
2
a.
aT
o
e-
a.
CM
n
a:
m
o
Interpretation |
X
"5
o
•°a
s<
C c
|i
2.2
«'g
c n
o g
E-S
(1) (o
"O Q)
T3 g
.32 -o
3 0
<4>» W
0> O
2-feL
£ £>
-5 A
•i-8
Sis.
gEa,
CL JS ri-
ll)
1
o.
d>
to
*J
t/)
>-
Minimizing mottle is a particular challenge when
printing large solid areas, which are typical in line
printing. There are no industry standards for "good"
or "bad" mottle. The values should be used only for
comparative analysis. The higher the Mottle Index,
the lower the print quality. Also, the higher the
standard deviation, the more variable the print
quality.
f^-
O o
«? CM
O D)
IO C
M TJ
.£ te to
S.« 2
~ * to
C- 1 flj
H!
is *sr tO
T» **
m CD 0)
0> .C £
E •"=; i-
•t'8 ^
(yyc
i.i'1
ill
i w 'c
C >-c
Measures spottiness or n
uniformity of an ink film la
Minimizing mottle is impo
for high-quality printing.
i?
^
5
o
Opacity is expressed as the percentage of light
blocked. Average values greater than 48% are
generally considered desirable. Factors such as
anilox roll volume play a greater role in opacity than
does ink type. High opacity is best achieved by
using inks with high solids content and high
application weights as governed by the anilox roll.
Opacity is also a function of substrate and plate
wettability. When interpreting opacity data,, the
anilox roll volumes, printing viscosity, and substrates
must be evaluated as a complete system.
jf
O Q. J—
o ° § c:
y z s5 o
torn 2 $
Q
W 0 $ ~
** O S T3
O
— Q> to as 5
'S S S> ^ § 2
°E ^.S,,;^^0-^
ll^g-s^Sls^
S to c >. >,4= "o ° -a o
stSlt^gS-Ss
y2)£toE2°(1) E
r>.a:Se/>.£oO«-an5O>
.-&"
o
•£ S 1i_ci5S(BO m c x -°
«s HPts §'§-11
^T3 "• O 3 «- C Q . tOCOmC
£tB <" w a m "w£o
"03 t»ta'o^-oQ- '5>"c1ccTi3
^•jg a) -Q a) fl)
= 43
tU 2 m TO i 0 -0
Q C JQ •*-* Q) 5 M S^ ™
/n rt\ /^ jQ TO (/) "O "^ "(O
"c f*^ ^~ ™^ "O C O D) n
fl) ^ ^^ ^ 05 ^~ C (A •
SlotooOTOStrliSQ) .Si,^
^ -J5 J3 :j= DJ Q. 3 '(5 N J3 C
I
1
A •—
3 W
Q£ £
o
01
k.
o
A
I
0)
U)
CO
4
Q
I-
UJ
O
O
O
Ij
CO
a.
-------
Ul
o
o
u.
a:
m
a.
TJ
3
o
42
w
£
•5
,0
•*"•
S3
I
*
I
co
£
=i
TJ
CU
O
2
Q.
oT
w
o
a
jg
2
OS
E
s
o
CM
v>
O
4
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Inks Used for the Study
Participation in the study was open to all ink formulators. The ink companies that
participated in this study donated all the inks and submitted their formulations to EPA.
Two different product lines were used for solvent-based inks, four product lines for water-
based inks, and three product lines for UV-cured inks. Both line colors and process colors
were printed, to cover the range of flexographic applications. Colors were printed to
match colors identified in the Pantone Color Selector/Film Guide. The colors used in the
demonstration are listed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Colors Used for the Tests
Line colors
Process colors
Blue
Green
White (opacity
Cyan
target 48%)
Specific Color
Reflex Blue
354 Green
Phthalocyanine Blue
Rubine Red
Substrates Used for the Tests
Flexographic printers produce many different products on a variety of substrates. The
Flexography Project selected film substrates so that data could be collected on technical
issues related to printing inks on film (e.g., drying times for non-solvent-based inks) and
environmental issues (e.g., VOC emissions from solvent-based inks). The DfE team,
along with the Technical Committee, chose three commonly used substrates that
correspond to particular product segments. The substrates selected were (1) clear low-
density polyethylene (LDPE), (2) white polyethylene/ethyl vinyl acetate (PE/EVA), and
(3) clear oriented polypropylene (OPP). These three substrates allow a wide range of
flexographic printers to benefit from the data analysis. Table 4.4 describes the substrates.
Table 4.4 Substrates Used for the Tests
Low-density
polyethylene (LDPE)
Polyethylene / ethyl
vinyl acetate (PE/EVA)
co-extruded film
Oriented polypropylene
Characteristics
1 .25 mil, medium
slip, clear
2.5 mil, high slip,
white, prints on
polyethylene side
0.75 mil, slip
modified
Printing Type
Surface
Surface
Reverse
Typical Products
Shopping bags and
bread bags
Frozen food bags
Snack food bags and
candy bar wrappers
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-11
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Film manufacturers donated the substrates used in the study. With two exceptions, air the
LDPE was supplied by one manufacturer, all the OPP was supplied by another
manufacturer, and all the PE/EVA was supplied by another. One exception was Site 11
where UV-cured ink was printed on an LDPE film that was extruded with no slip
additives. The other exception was Site 7, which received a different PE/EVA substrate.
All films used with water-based and UV-cured inks were treated on press with a corona
treater to achieve a dyne level specified by each ink manufacturer. The dyne levels of the
films treated in the demonstration runs ranged between 40 and 44 dynes. The one
exception was Site 4, for which the surface tension was known to be greater than 44 dynes
but could not be measured with the available equipment.
Image and Plates Used for the Tests
The methodology specified photopolymer printing plates for the performance
demonstration. The volunteer facilities were given the option of using donated plates or
plates supplied by their own vendors. The caliper (thickness) of the plates was optimized
for each press.
The test image was developed using recommendations made by the Technical Committee.
The image was 20 inches wide and 16 inches long. The image included both process tone
printing in various gradations and two-color line printing. A black and white, size-reduced
copy of the image can be found in Appendix 4-D.
Types of Printing Performed
The test image included process and line printing, to represent a wide range of types of
flexographic printing. The performance demonstration runs also included both surface and
reverse printing. In surface printing, the dried ink film sits on the surface of the product,
so the physical properties of the ink can be extremely important. For example, the
printing on food packages must be able to withstand extremes of temperature, wetness,' and
handling. In reverse printing, the ink is trapped between two layers of film, protecting it
from outside physical contact. The chemical properties of the ink film are essential for
keeping the substrate layers bound together and ensuring that the ink adheres well to the
substrate.
Limitations of the Performance Demonstrations
Close adherence to the performance methodology was attempted throughout the study.
Because of the voluntary nature of this project and the manufacturing diversity of the
flexographic industry, however, occasional adjustments to the methodology were required.
Overall changes, such as ink or substrate substitutions, were evaluated and approved by
the Steering Committee, the DfE staff, or the field testing teams as they arose. Specific
changes to the methodology made at the individual performance demonstration sites are
described in the site profiles. Significant deviations from the methodology included the
following:
• Adhering to the full two-hour run time of each ink-substrate combination would have
placed an unacceptable burden on the production schedules of the volunteer facilities
in six cases (Sites 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10). At these sites, the press crew and DfE team
continued the runs only as long as was deemed necessary to get accurate results.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-12
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
• Some sites experienced shortages of materials, such as substrate, which decreased the
run lengths. In addition, the overheating of the chill roller at Site 6 caused the run to
be aborted.
• Although target ranges for the anilox roll volumes were specified in the methodology,
the volunteer facilities did not all have rolls with these specifications available at the
time of the performance demonstration. Again, because of the production needs of the
volunteer facilities, changing or acquiring anilox rolls to meet the specified targets was
impractical. A summary of the actual anilox roll specifications for all of the
demonstration sites, along with the target specifications, can be found in Appendix 4-
H.
• Ink type although the focus of this project, is only one aspect of the very complex
printing process. The project was not designed to control for other variables, so
caution should be used when reviewing the test results.
. Although every effort was made to match the volunteer facility with the type of ink
and type of printing that the facility normally runs, this was not possible at Site 9B,
which normally runs water-based inks but ran solvent-based inks for the performance
demonstration. This may have had an impact on the performance demonstration
results.
In addition, the interpretation of the data is limited by the following caveats:
. Althoughtheperformancemethodologysetforthguidelinesandparametersforthe
on-site printing runs, variable conditions between and within printing facilities, the
limited number of facilities, and the relatively short duration of the performance
demonstrations do not allow the results to be interpreted as definitive performance
testing of the ink systems.
. Press operators' experience with ink systems differs substantially and can affect
ink performance. Some of the information recorded was subjective and depended
on the perception and previous experiences of the operators and the DfE team.
. Standardization of test protocols within the flexible packaging industries is limited.
Some of the tests used in this project were developed at WMU. Other procedures
were obtained from ink manufacturers and trade organizations. In addition,
during the testing of the printing products, some methods were modified to
improve accuracy and efficiency. The test procedures can be found in Appendix
4-E.
. Demonstration facilities were chosen based on their ink technology and relative
experience with the system, rather than on their ability to attain a close match to
all aspects of the performance test design.
Methodology for Laboratory Runs
Industry representatives decided that collecting data under both production and laboratory
ctSns would give printers a better sense of the actual capabilities of the ink/substrate
combinations undlr a variety of conditions. Thus, laboratory runs were conducted at
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Western Michigan University's printing laboratory to collect baseline data These runs
used the same ink/substrate combinations and the same test image.
For all solvent-based and water-based ink formulations, laboratory runs were performed
on a flexographic press at Western Michigan University (WMU). This was done to
provide consistency of results and a context in which to interpret the performance test
data.J)ue to equipment difficulties, the UV-cured ink combinations were not printed at
This section presents technical information about the laboratory facility and the press
Section 4.2 includes relevant data from the laboratory runs as well as the performance
demonstration sites. (Laboratory site codes begin with an "L".) Appendix 4-L also
provides a detailed narrative description of the laboratory runs, for readers who desire
more information. All the results of the laboratory runs are included in the tables in
Appendix 4-E, Laboratory Test Procedures and Performance Data.
Some general information about the facility at Western Michigan University is provided
in I able 4.5.
Table 4.5 Summary Facility Background Information for Laboratory Runs
Solvent-based and water-based for education and test runs
only
Emission control
equipment
None
Annual production
This facility is an educational institution, not a commercial
printing facility.
Operating hours
n/a
Avg. production run
n/a
The solvent-based and water-based inks used were provided by the same suppliers and
formulators that supplied inks for the performance demonstrations. Table 4 6 lists the ink
system, substrate, and product line that correspond to each laboratory run
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.6 Ink-Substrate Combinations for Laboratory Runs
Ink System
Water-based
a"L" indicates that this was a laboratory run.
The laboratory runs were conducted on a pilot press. The press used in the laboratory
runs has an in-line design. Information about the press and configuration is shown in
Tables 4 7 and 4 8 All laboratory runs were completed as designed, with no significant
deviations from the methodology. A summary of information about the laboratory runs is
provided in Table 4.9.
Table 4.7 Press Information for Laboratory Runs
tem
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Description
si^ssr^si^ss^^^^^^^^^^^^^"
Zerand
24 inches wide, two-color
Surface
500 feet/minute
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1 ) Two process plates (magenta and
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and
using hard stick back
cyan) mounted
white) mounted
Enercon
Two-roll with doctor blade
Stainless steel
Electric
'
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.8 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Laboratory Runs
•Deck 1 (white ink) was changed to cyan ink for the PE/EVA substrate.
lines per inch
cbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.9 Summary Information from Laboratory Runs
Substrate
Lab
Run#1
LDPE
Lab
Run #2
OPP
Lab
Run #3
OPP
Lab
Run #4
OPP
Lab
Run #5
LDPE
Lab
Run #6
==
PE/
EVA
Lab
Run #7
-'-'--
PE/
EVA
nk
#W3
#W4
#W2
#S2
#S2
#W3
#S2
Press Speed
343
231
292
324
311
274
305
fotal Footage Consumed
41,143
The laboratory runs were optimized for speed, to maximize quality and drying efficiency
Because these tests lasted only a few hours, the press speeds listed in Table 4 9 do not
necessarily reflect running speeds that may be more commonly seen in flexographic
printing facilities. F
The complete results for each test, including the laboratory runs, are provided in the tables
in Appendix 4-E, Laboratory Test Procedures and Performance Data.
Impression on an in-line press is not as accurate as a central impression (CI) flexographic
press. As a result, more mottle occurred during printing on all laboratory runs In
general, the water-based ink did not wet as well as the solvent-based ink, and more mottle
was evident. Excessive foaming of the ink was evident for L3 (Water #2) LI L2 and
L6 (Water #3, #4) also showed some foaming after 15 minutes. Drying on'the plates and
poor re-wettability was noted in L7 (Solvent #2) after 20 minutes. In all runs it was
necessary to wash the plates during roll changes.
Block resistance scores were fairly consistent between the laboratory runs and the
performance demonstrations (slight cling to slight blocking). No test received a score
higher than 3, indicating that blocking was not a serious problem in this setting.
For the gloss test, the laboratory readings tended to be quite a bit lower than the site
readings, indicating less gloss. This was especially evident with green water-based ink on
LDPE, which had gloss readings below 25%.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
For the opacity test, the average percent opacity was very high for site L5 (solvent-based
ink on LDPE), but fairly low for the other scenarios. A high score indicates better opacity
and higher quality of this aspect of the printing.
4.2 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS -
SOLVENT-BASED AND WATER-BASED INKS
This section discusses the results of the performance demonstration tests on solvent-based
and water-based inks using all three film substrates. These two ink systems are discussed
together to allow printers to compare how the systems perform with different substrates
and in different tests.
The 18 tests (listed in alphabetical order) measure many aspects of appearance, odor, and
durability of the inks, as well as evidence of interactions between the inks and film
substrates. Some of these tests have established quality standards, whereas many do not.
For example, the adhesive lamination and opacity tests each have a standard below which
results are considered unacceptable by the industry. For CIE L*a*b* and coefficient of
fiction tests, on the other hand, acceptability is a relative concept and depends entirely
upon the needs of the printing situation. Also, some tests, such as jar odor, which
measures the amount and type of odor from the different printed ink samples, are clearly
subjective. Tests such as dimensional stability measure how the ink (and the process that
applies it) affect the'structure of the substrate on which the ink is printed. Table 4.2
describes the purpose, procedure, and interpretation for each test that was performed
during the performance demonstrations and laboratory runs.
Data for the laboratory tests were obtained by examining up to four different locations on
the printed rolls. The locations from which samples were collected are described in
Appendix 4-A. A detailed description of each laboratory test procedure and results for the
performance demonstrations can be found in Appendix 4-E. The tests and results for the
laboratory runs are included in Appendix 4-L, and particularly interesting results are
highlighted in the text.
Adhesive Lamination — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
OPP was the only substrate that had a lamination layer to be tested. A clear propylene
substrate was laminated to the printed sample at Sites 1 and 4, while a metallized
propylene substrate was laminated to the printed sample at Site 9. Site 10 did not test for
adhesive lamination; although the test substrate was intended to be laminated, the site did
not have lamination capabilities.
Table 4.10 presents the adhesive lamination data. All four product lines tested had less
than the minimum 0.350 kg that is considered acceptable. However, the solvent-based ink
product line displayed a delamination force 16% greater than the average of the three
water-based ink product lines.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.10 Adhesive Lamination Results - Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-based
Film
OPP
OPP
Product Line
#S1
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
9B
4
1
9A
Average
Delamination
0.3040
0.2649
0.2631
0.2575
Standard
Deviation
0.0132
0.0012
0.0000
Block Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Table 4.11 summarizes the block resistance test data. The averages are based on four
measurements taken from each site sample. The two variables were the location of the
sample (e.g., beginning or end of the run) and whether ink transferred to a printed or
unprinted substrate. The most successful combinations of ink and substrate were water-
based inks on LDPE and PE/EVA. The least successful combinations were water-based
inks on OPP, followed by solvent-based inks on LDPE and PE/EVA.
Table 4.11 Block Resistance Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Average Rating of Blocking
2.9
2.9
1.9
1.2
1.2
The Mowing scale was used to assign a numerical score to the test results: 0 = no blocking
1 - slight cling. 2 = cling.. 3 = slight blocking. 4 = considerable blocking. 5 = complete
blocking. Table 4-E.1 in Appendix 4-E provides a detailed description of this scale
CDE L*a*b* — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
For most sites, samples were taken at four locations on the substrate during the test run
Due to the aborted run using the PE/EVA substrate at Site 7, however, samples were taken
only from the beginning and the end of the run. Sites 8 and 9 also had shorter runs, with
samples taken only from the beginning, 30 minutes into run, and the end of the run.
Table 4.12 presents the results of the CIE L*a*b* test. Because this test does not have
units and should be used for relative comparisons only, no overall statements can be made
about the results of this test.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-18
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.12 CIE L*a*b* Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Solvent-
based
Water-based
|
Film
DPE
PE/EVA
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
Product
#S2
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
L7
7
9B
10
L4
2
3
L1
Color
magenta
cyan
green
blue
maqenta
cyan
qreen
blue
green
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
green
cyan
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
qreen
magenta
cyan
qreen
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
green
Average
L*
47.07
59.82
53.42
38.07
50.03
61.75
63.67
42.43
61.73
54.11
62.17
56.78
36.84
65.25
63.30
50.98
61.22
67.69
38.77
51,98
59.97
64.76
47.64
67.01
70.86
56.29
40.01
69.86
51.43
56.38
62.31
34.11
52.46
64.10
61.77
33.43
68.39
Average
a*
58.41
-40.31
-48.59
5.25
54.48
-38.85
-39.34
0.03
-40.73
47.73
-27.49
-55.08
16.46
-37.46
-28.79
54.00
-31 .68
-46.98
13.11
52.20
-37.48
-35.20
-5.21
29.98
-27.42
-47.18
2.51
-35.62
50.55
-27.94
-51.15
16.01
51.31
-32.03
-54.49
17.90
-44.29
Average
b*
-4.83
-13.65
29.56
-50.33
-6.93
-23.90
31.42
-46.95
30.10
-0.38
-37.61
32.32
-57.24
31.32
-37.44
-3.89
-37.12
32.09
-53.87
-3.96
-27.02
30.42
-39.55
-5.73
-12.67
29.39
-46.11
32.38
-1.75
-35.69
34.34
-49.82
-7.16
-21.71
37.65
-50.75
32.33
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-19
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.12 CIE L*a*b* Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
(continued)
Ink
cont.
Film
OPP
Product
Line
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
2
3
L6
4
1
L3
9A
L2
Color
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
green
cyan
magenta
cyan
jjreen
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
green
magenta
cyan
green
blue
green
Average
55.22
58.57
62.32
33.87
54.03
62.00
62.27
35.01
70.40
64.77
49.22
59.46
53.32
39.75
50.17
57.40
64.19
30.19
72.58
48.53
57.80
61.39
42.17
66.32
Average
48.52
-22.09
-58.16
19.50
55.08
-28.11
-59.70
18.94
-51.59
-28.94
51.22
-32.96
-54.58
1.28
47.82
-30.72
-57.66
15.65
-32.68
52.36
-35.74
-53.33
-1.38
-44.36
Average
-1.05
-40.29
34.05
-4927
-2.54
-39.06
34.92
-50.39
29.28
-37.15
-4.05
-25.57
31.23
-45.48
2.44
-27.87
44.41
-37.30
25.21
4.16
-29.96
32.10
-44.90
L in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
Coating Weight — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Coating weight was measured for green, blue, and white printed areas on OPP and LDPE.
Only the green and blue inks were tested oh PE/EVA because it is a white substrate.
Figures 4.1-4.3 show the average coating weight data: The water-based inks in this study
had higher solids content than the solvent-based inks, a typical scenario for these ink types.
Therefore, on average, the water-based inks exhibited higher coating weights than the
solvent-based inks on PE/EVA and OPP. This difference was most marked in the case of
white ink on OPP and for blue and green inks on PE/EVA. For LDPE, on the other hand,
the coating weight for water-based green ink was substantially lower than that for solvent-
based green ink.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.1 Average Coating Weight for LDPE - Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
2.5 -i
Solvent-based ink Water-based ink
H Blue ink
Blue ink :
Green ink
White ink
0 Green ink , Q White ink
Solvent-based ink
1.77
1.98
2.21
Water-based ink
1.61
• 1.39
2.36
Figure 4.2 Average Coating Weight for PE/EVA — Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
2.5 -i
Solvent-based ink
Blue ink
Water-based ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
• .. 1.22 •
1.39
Water-based ink
2.02
1.65
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-21
eptember 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.3 Average Coating Weight for OPP — Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
03
I
3.5-1
3-
2.5-
2-
1.5-
o
o
P0.5H
Solvent-based ink Water-based ink
Blue ink ^] Green ink Q White ink
Blue ink
Green ink
White ink
Solvent-based ink
1.24
1.2
2.24
Water-based ink
1.39
1.64
3.24
Coefficient of Friction — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
The coefficient of friction (COP) between two layers of imprinted substrate was measured
to provide a control. The COF was then measured between printed substrate and
unprinted substrate, as well as between printed substrate and printed substrate. Printed
samples from Sites 1, 4, 9, and 10 were not tested in the laboratory because the OPP
substrate printed at these sites was laminated to another substrate. The lamination traps
the ink between the two substrate layers, making it unnecessary to test for COF.
Table 4.13 .summarizes the COF test results. This test does not have a standard, because
high COF may be desirable in some printing situations (for instance, if products are
stacked on top of one another), whereas a low COF may be equally important in other
cases. As would be expected, the unprinted controls had the lowest average COF, the
products with only one surface printed (Ink-Un) had a higher average COF, and the
products with both surfaces printed (Ink-Ink) had the highest average COF. Beyond this,
however, no clear differences emerged between the two ink systems or among the different
substrates.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.13 Coefficient of Friction Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product Line
#S2
#S2
#W3
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
Average Angle of Inclination
(degrees)
Ink-Una
28.4
25.2
20.8
25.6
23.5
27.6
27.8
34.2
24.8
21.6
26.6
Ink-Ink"
36.5
35.4
30.6
38.2
22.2
33.0
29.4
34.2
32.6
32.8
40.0
Control0
22.3
23.3
23.3
16.7
16.7
23.2
23.3
23.3
16.7
17.2
16.7
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
a"lnk-Un" represents the coefficient of friction for printed substrate on unprinted substrate.
b"lnk-lnk" represents the coefficient,of friction for printed substrate on printed substrate.
c"Control" represents the coefficient of friction for unprinted substrate on unprinted substrate.
Density — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Density was measured on areas printed with magenta, cyan, green, and blue inks. Due to
shortened runs at Sites 7 and 9, samples were taken only at three of the four planned
locations on the runs. Fewer samples than usual were taken for testing from the laboratory
runs because they were shorter in duration than the performance demonstration runs.
Figures 4.4-4.6 show the average density for these four ink colors on each substrate.
Scores were highest for blue ink in all scenarios, and blue ink scores were higher for
water-based inks than for solvent-based inks. Scores for the other colors tended to be fairly
consistent with each other. On OPP, density was considerably higher on all water-based
inks.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-23
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.4 Average Density for LDPE - Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
2.5-1
Solvent-based ink
ffi Magenta ink
Vy\ Green ink
Water-based ink
Cyan ink
Blue ink
Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Solvent-based ink
1.4
1.39
1.13
1.82
Water-based ink
1.23
1.19
1.35
2.14
Figure 4.5 Average Density for PE/EVA — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
1.5-
&
I ^
Q
0.5^
Solvent-based ink
0 Magenta ink
H Green ink
Water-based ink
Cyan ink
Blue ink
Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Solvent-based ink
1.32
1.51
1.18
1.85
Water-based ink
1.2
1.2
1.43
1.97
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-24
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.6 Average Density for OPP — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
1.5
o>
Q
H
0.5-
0
Solvent-based ink
[Qj Magenta ink
Green ink
Water-based ink
Cyan ink
Blue ink
Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Solvent-based ink
0.82
0.99
0.93
1.74
Water-based ink
1.31
1.36
1.44
1.94
Dimensional Stability — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Due to shortened runs at Sites 7 and 9, samples were taken only from some of the four
scheduled locations on the run. Table 4.14 presents the results of the dimensional stability
test. No statistically significant differences were evident between solvent-based and water-
based ink systems.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-25
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.14 Dimensional Stability Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
5
7
9B
10
2
3
2
3
4
• 1
9A
Average Percent
Change (Width)
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
0.7%
Average Percent
Change (Length)
2.0%
0.4%
2.4%
1.6%
1.1%
2.5%
1.0%
0.9%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.5%
Gloss — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Samples from sites 1, 4, 9, and 10 were not subjected to this test because the OPP
substrate printed at these sites was laminated. The ink was trapped between the two
substrate layers, making it unnecessary to test for gloss. Limited data were available from
Site 7 due to the shortened run on PE/EVA. Because the laboratory runs were shorter in
duration than the performance demonstration runs, samples for testing were only cut from
three locations.
Figure 4.7 shows the average gloss for samples on LDPE and PE/EVA. Overall, inks
showed higher gloss on PE/EVA than on LDPE, and solvent-based inks on PE/EVA had
the highest gloss.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-26
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.7 Average Gloss for LDPE and PE/EVA — Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
60-i
ta
J>50
'c
JT40-
CD
0)
•g20
o
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.15 Heat Resistance/Heat Seal Results — Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
OPP
OPP
Product
Line
#S1
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
9B
10
L4
4
1
L3
9A
L2
Number of
Passes
9
0
12
9
0
1
6
0
Number
of
Failures
9
18
0
15
24
11
12
12
Average Percent of
Ink Transfer Per
Failure
10%
39%
• —
21%
26%
10%
9%
22%
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Printed samples from Sites 1, 4, 9, and 10 were not tested because the OPP substrate
printed at these sites was laminated. This trapped the ink between the two substrate layers,
making it unnecessary to test the ink on the OPP substrate.
Ink adhesion was measured for each color on each substrate. Table 4.16 summarizes the
results of this test. The solvent-based ink performed successfully on both the LDPE and
PE/EVA substrates. Water-based ink #W3 was evaluated at two sites. At Site 2, the ink
performed successfully on both substrates, but at Site 3 the ink failed on both substrates.
These results suggest that facility-specific factors other than ink might have affected the
results.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-28
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.16 Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion Results — Solveht-based and
Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#W3
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
Any Ink Removal?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes, less than 5%
no
no
no; less than 5%a
yes, about 30% of the green ink
and less than 1 5% of the blue ink
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
aThree of the four samples had complete ink adhesion. The fourth sample had less than 5%
removed.
Image Analysis — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Due to the shortened run using the PE/EVA substrate at Site 7, samples were taken only
from the beginning and 30 minutes into the run. Because Sites 8 and 9 also had shorter
runs, samples were taken only from the beginning, 30 minutes into run, and the end of the
run.
Table 4.17 presents the image analysis results. Because the purpose of this test was to
evaluate screened dot detail as used in process color reproduction, only the magenta and
cyan process inks were analyzed. Table 4.17 presents the average dot area and perimeter
for these two colors at each performance demonstration site. No statistically significant
differences were evident between the two ink systems.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-29
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.17 Image Analysis Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
Film
LDPE '
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
5
7
9B
10
2
3
2
3
4
1
9A
Color
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan.
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
magenta
cyan
Average
Dot Area
(micron2)
953.28
725.86
1049.71
556.95
912.18
721.00
753.80
323.88
620.58
499.75
568.41
'• 967.98
608.53.
925.17
887.76
608.71
705.83
911.05
649.76
840.34
837.88
781.21.
371.59
338.71
715.59
748.80
Average
Dot
Perimeter
(microns)
125.06
104.26
130.64
107.29
118.81
104.70
123.13
103.58
102.60
84.20
122.39
263.90
93.30
120.86
127.30
97.16
107.11
118.63
96.93
114.19
116.53
112.03
97.63
81.61
108.58
95.80
Jar Odor — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Jar odor was evaluated for both printed and unprinted substrates. Table 4.18 presents the
results of the jar odor test, listing the strength of the odor present and a description of the
odor.
Most of the water-based ink samples had a relatively strong ammonia odor (2 to 3 on a
scale of 5). Water-based ink #W1 had a strong, unpleasant odor that was not specifically
identified as ammonia. The solvent-based inks had a waxy odor of varying strength (1 to
3 on a scale of 5) on all substrates. The one exception was the sample printed with
solvent-based ink #S2 on PE/EVA film at Site 7; this sample had no odor for the control
or the printed sample.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-30
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.18 Jar Odor Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product
Line
#S2
#S2
#S1
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
9B
10
L4
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
4
1
L3
9A
L2
Relative
Score8
3
1
2
1
0
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
2
2
0
2
Description of
Printed Area
unpleasant
waxy, not a big
difference from
control
mild waxy
not very
different from
control; slightly
like ethyl
acetate
no odor
mild waxy
ethyl acetate
waxy, no
difference from
control
mild waxy
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
strong ammonia
odor
mild waxy
unpleasant,
strong
ammonia odor
ammonia odor
no difference
from control
ammonia odor
Description of
Unprinted Area
(control)
very slightly waxy
waxy,
hydrocarbons
very mild waxy
mild waxy
no odor
very mild waxy
mild waxy
waxy
very mild waxy
very slight waxy
no odor
very mild waxy
very slight waxy
very mild waxy
mild waxy
mild
mild
very mild waxy
mild waxy
very mild waxy
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
aPrinted samples were scored on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 signifying no odor, and 5 signifying
an unpleasant, offensive odor.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-31
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Mottle/Lay — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Mottle was measured on green and blue printed areas. Figures 4.8-4.10 show much
higher mottle on the samples printed with water-based inks, especially on LDPE and
PE/EVA. Wettability of the substrate plays a role in mottle, and polyethylene substrate
surfaces generally do not wet as well as OPP. Corona treatment was employed, however,
on all of the LDPE and PE/EVA substrates where water-based inks were used.
Mottle also was significantly higher on the blue printed areas of all samples tested. None
of the variables hi this study are thought to account for the differences between the green
and blue printed sample results for mottle/lay. Ink formulation and pigment type are most
likely the cause for the variations; these variations were evident both ink systems.
Figure 4.8 Average Mottle Index for LDPE — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Solvent-based ink
• Blue ink
Water-based ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
298.7
69.8
Water-based ink
793.75
101
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-32
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.9 Average Mottle Index for PE/EVA — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
1000^
800
J> 600
o 400
200
0
Solvent-based ink
Blue ink
Water-based ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
343.25
87.5
Water-based ink
812.25
85
Figure 4.10 Average Mottle Index for OPP — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
o,
600 -n
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
o-
XV
M
Solvent-based ink
H Blue ink
Water-based ink
Green ink
Blue ink
Green ink
Solvent-based ink
386.7
78
Water-based ink
531.5
96
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-33
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Opacity — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Opacity was measured for samples of white ink on LDPE and OPP. White samples were
not printed on PE/EVA because it is a white substrate! The laboratory runs, as well as the
runs at Site 9, were shorter in duration than the other demonstration runs; samples were
therefore available only from three locations on these runs.
Results for both ink systems were considered acceptable by industry standards (opacity
greater than 48 %). Results were virtually identical for both ink systems on both substrates.
Rub Resistance — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Samples from sites 1, 4, 9, and 10 were not tested in the laboratory, because the OPP
substrate printed at these sites was laminated to another substrate. This lamination trapped
the ink between the two substrate layers, making it unnecessary to test for rub resistance.
Due to the shortened run using the PE/EVA substrate at Site 7, samples were taken only
from the beginning and end of the run. Because Site 8 also had a shorter run for the
PE/EVA substrate, samples were taken only from the beginning, 30 minutes into the run,
and the end of the run.
The blue sample was used for rub testing of the samples taken from the performance
demonstration sites. Because blue was not printed during the laboratory runs, the green
samples were tested instead.
All inks retained close to 95 % of their density after the dry rub test. Table 4.19 presents
a summary of the wet rub test results. During the wet rub testing, the water-based ink
printed on LDPE performed the best, with "no failure at ten strokes" being reported on
the samples from both Sites 3 and LI. The other ink-substrate combinations had mixed
results.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-34
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.19 Wet Riib Resistance Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product Line
#S2
#S2
#W3
#W3
Site
5
7
L5
5
7
L7
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
Failure at Number of Strokes
(average)3
4.2
5.0
no failure at 10 strokes
2.2
5.0
5.7
8.0
no failure at 10 strokes
no failure at 10 strokes
2.5
3.2
two samples had failures at 6
and 7 strokes; one sample had
no failure at 1 0 strokes
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
aA failure represents ink color transferred from the printed substrate to the unprinted substrate.
A maximum of 10 strokes were used for the wet rub resistance test. Measurements were taken
at four locations and averaged.
Tape Adhesiveness — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Tape adhesiveness was measured on LDPE, PE/EVA, and when appropriate, on OPP. The
OPP substrates run at the'demonstration sites were not tested in the laboratory because
these substrates were laminated. Thus, only OPP substrates printed in the laboratory runs
were tested for tape adhesiveness. Only the colored inks were tested on the PE/EVA
substrate because it is a white substrate.
Table 4.20 presents the results of the tape adhesiveness test. Both inks adhered completely
to LDPE. Solvent-based and water-based inks showed good adhesion when printed on
OPP during the laboratory runs.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-35
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.20 Tape Adhesiveness Results — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-based
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Product Line
#S2
#S2
#S2
#W3
#W3
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
-L5
5
7
L7
L4
2
3
L1
2
3
L6
L3
L2
Number
of
Passes
4
4
3
2
0
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
0
3
3
Number
of
Failures
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
Comments
outline of cyan
and magenta
was removed
cyan and
magenta were
slightly removed
blue was
removed
green was
removed
all colors were
removed
"L" in a site number indicates that the data were taken from a run conducted at Western
Michigan University, not from a volunteer printing facility.
Trap — Solvent-based and Water-based Inks
Each site selected its own color sequence for first-down and second-down colors. Trap
was measured for both 100% tone (solid) and 80% tone samples printed with magenta and
cyan. • • ,-
Figure 4.11-4.12 show the average percent trap for these two ink colors on each substrate.
The solvent-basedinks demonstrated better trap than the water-based inks on the PE/EVA
and OPP films. The water-based inks showed slightly better performance than the solvent-
based on the LDPE substrate.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-36
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.11 Average Trap for LDPE and PE/EVA— Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
LDPE: Solvent-based ink
LDPE: Water-based ink
PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
PE/EVA: Water-based ink,
_DPE: Solvent-based ink
98.4
LDPE: Water-based ink
104.8
PE/EVA: Solvent-based ink
98.7
PE/EVA: Water-based ink
86.9
Figure 4.12 Average Trap for OPP— Solvent-based and
Water-based Inks
100
Solvent-based ink
Water-based ink
Solvent-based ink
98
87.8
Water-based ink
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-37
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Highlights of Performance Results for Solvent-Based and Water-Based Inks
No clear evidence emerged from these tests that either the solvent-based or the water-based
system performed better overall. The results of the tests varied widely. On some tests, both
ink systems performed comparably well on one substrate and poorly on another. COP,
and in most cases density, dimensional stability, image analysis, opacity, and rub
resistance, all displayed results that were fairly consistent from substrate to substrate for
both ink systems.
On the other hand, other tests showed wide internal variability. Solvent-based inks
performed an average of 16 % better than water-based inks on the adhesive lamination test.
Water-based inks had much better ratings than solvent-based inks on both LDPE and
PE/EVA. Gloss was highest for solvent-based inks on PE/EVA. On OPP, heat resistance
varied from 9% for one water-based ink to 39% for a solvent-based ink. Odors varied in
both strength and type across both ink and substrate type. Mottle was significantly higher
for blue inks and water-based inks. Tape adhesiveness and trap varied by substrate and ink
system.
These variances point out the importance of a number of factors in the performance of
these inks. Substrate type clearly emerged as a critical component of quality. The type and
amount of the vehicle (solvent in solvent-based ink and water in water-based ink), as well
as press-side solvents and additives, affected the physical properties of ink and substrate.
In turn, functional ink-substrate interactions such as wetting and adhesion affected several
of the performance results.
The variability of the results indicates that there may not be one best overall choice of an
ink system for all conditions and applications. One clear conclusion is that a flexographic
printer cannot make a simple assumption that any of these ink systems or ink-substrate
combinations will be best-suited to the firm's overall needs. Careful testing of a potential
ink system on the various substrates that a printer will be using most often is critical to
obtaining desired quality on a consistent basis.
4.3 RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND LABORATORY RUN TESTS -
UV-CURED INKS
This section focuses specifically on the ultraviolet-cured ink system. UV-cured inks are
treated separately because flexographic printing technology using this ink system was still
hi a developmental phase at the time this research was performed (November 1996—March
1997). The' performance demonstrations using UV-cured ink should be viewed as a
snapshot of the UV-cured ink technology under field conditions during that time period.
Since that tune, improvements in UV-cured inks have been made that are described in
more detail at the end of this section (Technological Developments in UV-cured Inks). Due
to technical limitations, no laboratory runs were performed for UV inks.
This section discusses the performance of UV-cured inks in the laboratory tests conducted
to evaluate the performance demonstration samples. For the methodology or for more
specific information regarding the performance demonstration tests, please see Section 4.1
of this chapter and Appendix 4-E. Table 4.2, near the start of this chapter, describes the
purpose, procedure, and interpretation for each test that was performed.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-38
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Substrate type played a major role in the performance of UV-cured inks during the tests,
showing that the ink-substrate relationship is very important to the performance of printed
products. As is true for the solvent-based and water-based ink systems, the variability of
the UV-cured ink results also varied widely among tests. Printers need to consider the
needs of their clients, the type of substrates and products that they most often print, and
the desired aspects of quality that are most critical overall, when determining which type
of ink system will be most appropriate for the facility.
Block Resistance — UV-cured Inks
Table 4.21 shows the results of this test. On LDPE the ink showed slight blocking. Due
to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no block
resistance data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.21 Block Resistance Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Average Rating of Blocking
Resistance3
2.5
1.4
1.0
"The following scale was used to assign a numerical score to the test results: 0 = no blocking. 1
= slight cling. 2 = cling. 3 = slight blocking. 4 = considerable blocking. 5 = complete blocking.
Table 4-E.1 in Appendix 4-E provides a detailed description of this scale.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-39
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
CIE L*a*b* — UV-cured Inks
Results for LDPE and PE/EVA are shown in Table 4.22. Due to the absence of successful
runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no CIE L*a*b* data were available for this
ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.22 CIE L*a*b* Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV-cured
(no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Color
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
magenta
cyan
green
blue
Average
L*
43.80
61.17
65.54
40.57
47.60
60.78
64.47
38.81
53.21
62.38
70.93
48.64
52.71
59.88
63.86
3460
Average
a*
49.03
-37.58
-50.76
2.25
53.85
-30.65
-57.91
11.30
53.50
-27.22
-53.83
8.45
48.81
-33.27
-56.90
15 39
Average
b*
10.90
-23.76
32.96
-44.73
4.01
-38.58
31.73
-50.42
-2.41
-36.98
6.50
-46.77
-4.70
-24.42
10.70
-51 63
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-40
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Coating Weight — UV-cured Inks
On LDPE, coating weight was lowest for blue and highest for white inks. Figures 4.13 and
4.14 show the results. There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP, so no
coating weight data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Figure 4.13 Average Coating Weight for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
<§0.5H
UVink
Blue ink
Green ink
UV ink (no slip)
I I White ink
Blue ink
Green ink
White ink
UVink
1.92
2.77
3.51
UV ink (no slip)
1.94
2.98
3.71
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-41
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
3.5
Figure 4.14 Average Coating Weight for PE/EVA — UV-cured Inks
Blue ink
Green ink
UVink
Blue ink g| Green ink
UV ink
3.07
2.1
Coefficient of Friction — UV-cured Inks
Results are shown in Table 4.23. UV ink #U3 at Site 11 had the highest COF, as was
expected since a no-slip film was used. The COF for UV ink #U2 on LDPE (Site 6) was
higher than the other ink-substrate combinations, particularly for two layers of printed
substrate. Otherwise, no significant differences between inks tested on the LDPE and
PE/EVA substrates existed. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the
OPP substrate, no COF data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.23 Coefficient of Friction Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Average Angle of Inclination
(degrees)
Ink-Una
31.2
20.8
25.9
36.9
Ink-Ink"
53.8
21.3
24.7
60+d
23.3
16.7
16.7
45.0
The angle of inclination was higher than 60 degrees.
a"lnk-Un" represents the coefficient of friction for printed substrate on unprinted substrate.
J'lnk-lnk" represents the coefficient of friction for printed substrate on printed substrate.
^'Control" represents the coefficient of friction for unprinted substrate on unprinted substrate.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-42
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Density — UV-cured Inks
Results are shown in Figures 4. 15 and 4. 16. On LDPE, the density score for blue ink was
substantially higher than that for any other color. Density on LDPE was much lower on
the high-slip substrate. Due to a shortened run at site 8, samples were taken only at three
of the four planned locations on the runs. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-
cured ink on the OPP substrate, no density data were available for this ink-substrate
combination. ,
Figure 4.15 Average Density for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
2.5 -r
UVink
UV ink (high slip)
Magenta ink Ul Cyan ink
Green ink H Blue ink
Magenta ink
Cyan ink
Green ink
Blue ink
UVink
1.68
1.34
1.17
1.88
UV ink (high slip)
1.09
1.25
1.46
2.17
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-43
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.16 Average Density for PE/EVA — UV-cured Inks
UVink
Magenta ink
Green ink
Cyan ink
Blue ink
Magenta ink
cyan ink
Green ink
blue ink
UVink
1.43
1.25
1.15
1.51
UV ink (high slip)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Dimensional Stability — UV-cured Inks
Results are shown in Table 4.24. All three substrates showed similar measurements.
Because the run at site 8 was shortened, samples were not taken from all scheduled
locations. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate,
no dimensional stability data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.24 Dimensional Stability Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV (no slip)
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
Product
Line
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Average
54.34
54.24
54.08
54.25
Average Length
77.24
77.92
75.83
Gloss — UV-cured Inks
Figure 4.17 shows the results for UV and UV no slip on LDPE. All readings were below
50%, with UV on,LDPE performing the best (46.83%). UV on PE/EVA averaged
42.41 %. Limited data were available from Site 8, due to the shortened runs on PE/EVA.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-44
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no gloss data
were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Figure 4.17 Average Gloss for LDPE — UV-cured Inks
50
1
$40
'c
|30
CO
2
3*20
-a
o
CO
JlO
CD
HP
SSfeSSSfi
UVink
UVink
UVink (no slip)
46.83
32.31
UV ink (no slip)
Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion — UV-cured Inks
Table 4.25 shows that two of the three UV-cured product lines (UV ink #U1 and UV ink
#U3) stayed flexible on both substrates, but UV ink #U2 failed on both substrates.
Table 4.25 Ice Water Crinkle Adhesion Results - UV-cured Inks
Image Analysis — UV-cured Inks
Table 4 26 shows the results of the test. Both average dot area and average dot perimeter
varied but not consistently with each other. Dot area showed a range from 384 square
microns (cyan on PE/EVA) to 966 square microns (cyan on LDPE). Dot perimeter varied
from a low of 80 square microns (cyan and magenta) to a high of almost 139 square
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-45
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
. PERFORMANCE
microns (cyan). Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP
substrate, no image analysis data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.26 Image Analysis Results — UV-cured Inks
Average
Dot
Perimeter
microns
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-46
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Jar Odor — UV-cured Inks
Table 4 27 lists the results of this test. The UV-cured inks showed more of a range in
scores than did the other ink types. UV ink #U3 had the mildest odor, both in strength (1)
and description (mild waxy). The odor from UV ink #U1 was rated 3 in strength and was
described as "mild acetic acid." UV ink #U2 had the strongest odors (4 to 5 on a scale of
5) and was described as "very strong bitter almond" on the LDPE substrate, and as very
strong decayed fish" on the PE/EVA. It should be noted that the controls for these
: samples were, respectively, "slightly like bitter almond" and "fish." This implies that
either the unprinted substrate's odor affected the odor of the ink sample, or that the odor
of the ink sample affected the entire roll (both printed and unprinted areas). Due to the
absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no jar odor data were
available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.27 Jar Odor Results - UV-cured Inks
ik
V
JV
slip)
.
Film
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
— ^^=^=
=====
Product Line
=====
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
=====
===
Site
=
6
6
8
11
=====
•
Relative
Score3
=====
4
5
1
3
=====
Description of
Printed Area
=====
very strong
bitter almond
very strong,
decayed fish
very slight odor
acetic acid, mild
=====
Description of
Unprinted Area
(control)
slightly like bitter
almond
fish
mild waxy
waxy
=====
•Printed samples were scored on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 signifying no odor, and 5 signifying an
unpleasant, offensive odor.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-47
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Mottle/Lay — UV-cured Inks
Figures 4.18 and 4.19 display the results of the mottle/lay test. Green ink showed little
mottle on either substrate. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the
OPP substrate, no mottle data were available for this ink-substrate combination
Figure 4.18 Average Mottle Index for LDPE — UV cured Inks
400 -i
UVink
Blue ink
UVink
"281"
73
UV ink (no slip)
Green ink
UV ink (no slip)
382.5
47
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-48
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Figure 4.19 Average Mottle Index for PE/EVA — UV-cured Inks
500
Blue ink
UVink
IH Green ink
Blue ink
Green ink
UVink
491
53.45
UV ink (no slip)
n/a
n/a
Opacity — UV-cured Inks
The readings averaged around 55 % but showed high standard deviation values, which may
indicate poor uniformity of substrate coverage. Only LDPE data were collected for this
test. The opacity test was not run on PE/EVA because it is a white substrate, and there
were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-49
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Rub Resistance — UV-cured Inks
Table 4.28 shows the results of wet rub resistance tests. UV on LDPE performed the best
with failure at an average of 5.2 strokes. Due to the absence of successful runs of UV-
cured ink on the OPP substrate, no rub resistance data were available for this ink-substrate
combination. For dry rub resistance, the ink used on no-slip LDPE (Site 11) received the
only score below 90%.
Table 4.28 Wet Rub Resistance Results - UV-cured Inks
Failure at Number of Strokes
average
5.2
^^^ sub*trate to the imprinted substrate.
at four locations and averaged. See Appendix 4-E for specifics.
Tape Adhesiveness — UV-cured Inks
Table 4.29 shows the results of the test. Results were mixed. UV no slip on LDPE had no
failures and 4 passes, whereas UV on PE/EVA had the reverse showing Due to the
absence of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no tape adhesiveness
data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.29 Tape Adhesiveness Results - UV-cured Inks
Ink
UV
in
(no slip)
'E/EVA
LDPE
#U2
#U3
#111
white and magenta
were removed
blue, green, and
magenta were
removed
cyan was slightly
removed
Trap — UV-cured Inks
This system averaged approximately 90% for trapping. UV inks on PE/EVA scored an
average of 93 %, whereas on LDPE the inks scored an average of 87 %. Due to the absence
of successful runs of UV-cured ink on the OPP substrate, no trap data were available for
this ink-substrate combination.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-50
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Uncured Residue — UV-cured Inks
The uncured residue test was performed only for UV-cured inks. The uncured residue test
was measured in the laboratory with samples collected from Sites 6, 8 and 11. UV ink
was not run at any other sites.
Uncured residue was measured only for green, blue, and white ink, since these colors had
the largest areas of coverage! Results are presented in Table 4.30 as average percent (by
weight) of ink removed. The averages are based on four measurements taken at different
locations from each site sample. Uncured residue was found only on the blue ink samples.
Due to the absence of successful runs of UV ink on the OPP substrate, no uncured residue
data were available for this ink-substrate combination.
Table 4.30 Average Uncured Residue Results — UV-cured Inks
Ink
======
UV
Film
=====
LDPE
PE/EVA
Product Line
—
#U2
#U2
#U3
#U1
Site
6
6
8
11
Percent of Ink
Removed
(by weight)3
0.00
0.00
6.97
10.42
aUncured residue was found on the blue ink samples only.
Summary of Performance Test Results for UV-Cured Inks
These performance demonstrations were completed in 1996 and 1997, and flexographic
printing technology for UV-cured inks has made significant advances since then. The test
results recorded in this CTSA provide a snapshot of UV technology early in its technical
development but do not necessarily lead to any conclusions about current or potential
abilities of UV inks. In fact, just as for solvent-based and water-based inks, no one test can
provide a reliable or accurate indicator of overall quality for any printer. Printers need
to consider a variety of different factors in determining acceptable quality. These factors
- among them cost, health and environmental risks, energy use, and pollution prevention
opportunities — are discussed in other chapters of this CTSA.
UV-cured inks performed well on some tests. The inks displayed good resistance to
blocking, particularly on PE/EVA and no-slip LDPE. The inks displayed relatively good
trapping Mottle was better than that of the water-based inks and comparable to that of the
solvent-based inks. For the ice water crinkle test, only one UV-cured ink (#U2) displayed
evidence of removal. Also, the coating weight was greater than that for solvent- and
water-based inks, despite lower ink consumption as measured in Chapter 6.
The test results on these particular UV product lines also showed a need for improvement,
particularly some physical adherence tests. The rub resistance and tape adhesiveness
results were unimpressive for inks #U1 and #U3; these results may have been caused by
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-51
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
the incomplete curing observed with these two product lines. The opacity level (measured
for white inks only) showed a high standard deviation, which indicated a lack of
uniformity. In addition, gloss was low, despite the fact that high gloss is considered to be
a strength of UV finishes. •
With any new technology, changes can occur rapidly/and UV-cured inks are no
exception. Some evidence exists that some of the limitations noted in the CTSA have been
remedied to some extent. For example, cationic inks (as opposed to the free-radical UV
inks studied in this CTSA) may have lower shrinkage rates and improved flexibility which
may help with adherence. Other adjustments in chemistry are being made to 'reduce
viscosity and improve the curing rate of UV, inks. Furthermore, improvements in
equipment may lead to overall better coatings.
Technological Development in UV-cured Inks
Since the performance demonstrations were completed, UV-cured flexographic ink
technology has experienced a number of changes. This section describes significant
developments and the improvements they could yield, and discusses aspects of the
technology that continue to pose difficulties.
Many advances have been made in the past few years that improve the quality of UV inks
for wide-web flexography. New cationic inks might offer an alternative for printers who
use porous substrates, need a more thoroughly cured ink, or print items for which odor
must be minimized. Improvements have been made with free-radical UV-cured inks- some
inks can be used on several substrates, the viscosity has been reduced, and the ink is more
durable when applied. Equipment improvements have led to better heat management
which m turn has-provided printers with better energy efficiency, improved equipment
durability, and high-quality products. Furthermore, technologies such as improved UV
bulbs are improving curing rates while at the same time requiring that less photoinitiator
be included in the ink.
Although UV wide-web flexography still faces obstacles, technological developments
indicate that UV will continue to improve and grow in the future.
Cationic Inks
Currently, most UV-cured ink is based on free radical curing, which involves acrylate
monomers that, when exposed to high-energy ultraviolet light, undergo a chain reaction
to bind together in a large polymer. (For more information on the free-radical curing
process, see Chapter 2.) This free radical reaction is beneficial in several ways most
prominently that the reaction (or "drying") is almost instantaneous when the polymer is
exposed to the UV light. However, the reaction process causes the ink to shrink which
affects the ability of the ink to bind to the substrate. Also, the reaction can be inhibited by
the presence of oxygen, and unreacted acrylic molecules can have an unpleasant odor.1
The evolution of cationic inks is one of the most significant recent developments in UV-
cured ink technology. Cationic inks work in a similar fashion to free-radical inks in that
small monomers react to form a cohesive polymer in the presence of UV rays' This
process differs from free radical curing in that the monomer in the ink is usually an
epoxide rather than an acrylate, and that the reaction occurs due to the reaction of
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-52
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
electron-deficient ions, rather than the binding of electronically-neutral but unstable
radicals.
One benefit of the cationic system over the free radical system is that the reaction is not
inhibited by oxygen; therefore, the curing is usually more complete. However, the
reaction can be limited if bases, such as amines, are present in the ink or substrate.2
Cationic, inks have several other advantages. The epoxide shrinks less than acrylate when
it polymerizes, and therefore adheres to the substrate better. Cationic inks have less odor,
because the material dries more thoroughly and because epoxides are inherently less
odorous than acrylics. Furthermore, cationic inks are less viscous. As a result, they flow
well without heating, they require corona treatment less frequently, and the applied layer
is more evenly spread for solid colors. Ink densities are also stronger for cationic inks
than they might be for free radical inks.3 In addition, cationic inks can produce a high
gloss and good adhesiveness, and thus can prevent the need for costly lamination on
certain products.4
There are several disadvantages, however, that currently make canonic inks a less popular
option than the more established free radical system. Even though cationic inks may dry
more thoroughly, the drying process takes longer. This has implications for press speed,
because additional colors cannot be added until the first color cures.5 Also, the final
product printed with cationic inks does not have as much solvent resistance as free radical
inks.6 Finally, cationic inks might not cure effectively on high-pH substrates, such as
paper. ,
Other Ink Developments
Significant advances have been made in adjusting the properties of both free radical and
cationic inks. One such property is the ability to be printed on more than one substrate.
Early UV-cured inks were specially formulated for a given substrate, and several sets of
UV ink chemistries had to be stored on-site if a printer worked with multiple substrates.
This practice was inconvenient and increased inventory costs. Newer UV-cured inks are
more universal and perform consistently on most substrates. However, these inks may
damage the photopolymer plates, which then require more frequent changing.7
Ink suppliers are now developing UV-cured inks that have less odor, either by reducing
the amount of photoinitiator and monomer needed, or modifying the chemical structure of
the monomer so that it is less pungent.8 Skin irritation sometimes caused by UV-cured
inks has been mitigated by using water to reduce the viscosity of the inks rather than
traditional diluents.9 Also, the resistance of inks to water damage has been improved by
developing additives that make the ink more durable.10 ,
Temperature Control
Temperature management with central impression drum presses (which include most wide-
web presses) equipped with UV curing equipment has been a challenge. Typically, some
UV rays reflect off of the drum and heat it in the process. When the press temperature is
raised above the standard 32°C, the drum is vulnerable to warping. In addition, heat can
damage some substrates, including films. -
Adjusting the energy input to the curing lamps has been one approach to reducing press
temperatures. One study found that with most UV-cured inks, smaller diameter bulbs
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-53
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
cured the inks at the same rate but used significantly less energy and thus generated less
heat. In addition, specialized bulbs (e.g., D bulbs containing iron for pigmented inks and
V bulbs containing gallium for white inks) can reduce the required energy.11
Lowering ink viscosity also helps lower temperatures. Viscous inks often require heating
in order to make the ink flow well. Cationic inks, which generally are less viscous and
do not require heating, are a possible solution for printers faced with difficulties in heat
management.
Equipment suppliers are also improving power supply and ventilation systems used in
curing UV inks. Devices can be installed that allow for variable power supply; the press
operator can adjust the power so that only the minimum amount of energy is used to cure
the ink. Heat can be removed more efficiently from the bulb and substrate surface by
making improvements in ventilation, such as improved lamp housing aerodynamics and
variable-speed blowers.12
Ultraviolet/Electron Beam (UV/EB) Hybrid Press
A combination of a UV press with a final electron beam (EB) curing station is still
considered experimental, but might improve drying and reduce energy demands. An EB
curing station emits a higher energy wave than UV lamps, and therefore penetrates thicker
layers better. Because EB lamps cure so much more thoroughly at the end, the
intermediate UV lamps do not have to be as powerful, and fewer photoinitiator are needed
in the inks.13 It has been estimated that a UV/EB hybrid press consumes 35 percent less
energy and produces less heat.14 In addition, the UV/EB technology can be used with
porous substrates, which standard UV technology cannot since it does not thoroughly cure
ink on such substrates. Currently, the major limitation for UV/EB technology is the large
capital expenditure required for equipment. In addition, performance properties of the ink
might be altered.15
Remaining Technical Challenges
Despite the advances made during the past few years, several difficulties still remain with
UV technology. One that is particularly evident in film applications is inadequate
adhesion. Much of the difficulty stems from the shrinkage that free radical UV-cured inks
undergo as they cure. Because shrinkage is less of an issue with cationic inks, further
development of cationic inks may help solve this problem. Ink suppliers are also
developing free radical UV-cured inks with improved adhesion.
Another issue is the application of even ink layers. Historically, the thick viscosity of UV-
cured inks has created discontinuous ink layers and pinholing. The reduced viscosity of
current UV inks reduces pinholing but increases dot gain.16-17> 18
4.4 SITE PROFILES
The site profiles provide background information for each of the volunteer printing
facilities that participated in the performance demonstrations. This section provides
information about each facility, as well as technical information about each press.
Table 4.31 summarizes the press speed, run time, and run length for each of the
performance demonstration sites.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-54
September 2000
-
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.31 Summary Information about the Performance Demonstration Sites
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9A
9B
10
11
nk
Water-based
Water-based
Water-based
Water-based
Solvent-based
UV
Solvent-based
UV
Water-based
Solvent-based
Solvent-based
UV
Substrate
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
PE/EVA
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
OPP
OPP
LDPE
Average
press speed
(ft/min)b
430
403
403
218
430
450
400
400
344
354
344
450
—
262
262
262
425
415
600
400
Run time
(minutes)3
129
93
102
126
131
123
57
56
92
95
38
148
—
65
63
15
66
80
90
153
Run length (feet)
51,000
37,053
37,868
26,927
47,884
13,160
21,924
20,858
32,431
27,691
6,853
42,000
8,069
2,559
15,912
4,265
34,434
33,641
56,700
38,400
1 Run time included changing of substrate rolls and getting the press back up to speed.
b Based on the maximum speed attained during the run.
Site 1: Water-based Ink #W2 on OPP
Table 4.32 Facility Background Information for Site 1
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
1 00% water-based
None
1.5 million pounds of clear and metallized polypropylene,
polyethylene, and polyester; cellophane and paper
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, 363 days per year
Four hours
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-55
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.33 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 1
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater (yes / no)
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Amber Press, Central Impression
55 inches wide, eight-color
Reverse
500 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and
using 0.020 hard stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and
using 0.020 hard stick back
cyan) mounted
white) mounted
Pillar, Model DB5673-16
Chambered
Steel
Peristaltic air pump, pumping from semi-covered five-
gallon buckets
Table 4.34 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 1
Seauence
Deckl
Deck 2 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck 4
Deck 5 — Not Used
Decks
Deck 7 — Not Used
Deck 8
Color
Blue
—
Cyan
Green
—
Magenta
—
White
280
—
800
280
—
800
—
280
7.0
_
1.7
6.4
1.7
7.5
lines per inch
bbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.35 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 1
Substrate
OPP
Press soeed
430 ft/min
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-56
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Observations and Comments
Due to site-specific circumstances, a surface ink was used for the blue in place of a reverse
ink at the start of the run. The correct reverse ink was added to the surface ink in the ink
pan after approximately 38,000 impressions. While a press speed of 500 ft/min might
have been possible with this press and ink, bounce on the white plate limited the maximum
obtainable speed to 430 ft/min. The bounce on the white plate occurred due to mounting.
Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
result and achieve production printing speeds and conditions.
Site 2: Water-based Ink #W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA
Table 4.36 Facility Background Information for Site 2
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avq production run
Description
100% water-based
None
10,465,000 pounds of polyethylene flexographic-printed
products
24 hours per day, 363 days per year
Five hours, includinq makereadv
Table 4.37 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 2
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Description
UTECO, Quarz 140
54 inches wide, six-color
Surface
500 feet/minute
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and
using Tessa hard stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and
using Tessa hard stick back
cyan) mounted
white) mounted
Enercon
Chamber
Daetwyler 0.006
Peristaltic pump with air monitors in each five-gallon
bucket
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-57
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.38 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 2a
Sequence
Deck 1
Deck 2
Deck 3 - Not Used
Deck 4
Decks
DeckG
Color
White
Green
—
Magenta
Blue
Cyan
Anilox lpib
360
300
• —
360
280
360
5.05
6.90
—
5.13
6.00
4.90
"Deck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
blines per inch •
cbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.39 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 2
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press speed
403 ft/min
403ft/min
Run time
93 minutes
102 minutes
Run lencith
37,053 feet
37,868 feet
Observations and Comments
LDPE
Pinholing occurred in all colors, and the trap was poor. No blocking or apparent problems
with dimensional stability occurred. The pinholing and poor trap were considered
acceptable and typical for this site. The press operator made minor impression adjustments
in an effort to compensate for the pinholing.
PE/EVA
The green and blue samples taken at the beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test,
while the magenta and cyan passed. The printing quality of all colors was poor, and the
printing appeared dirty, but the lay was acceptable with no blocking. The trap was
variable depending on position across the web and impression. There appeared to be no
dimensional stability concerns.
At the end of the run, the green and blue samples continued to fail the adhesiveness test,
but the magenta and cyan samples passed with no failure or ink removed. The printing
still appeared to look dirty. Trap was acceptable and lay was improved.
Overall, the makeready and run were completed with no serious complications. The
printing problems encountered were considered normal for this site.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-58
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Site 3: Water-based Ink #W3 on LDPE and PE/EVA
Table 4.40 Facility Background Information for Site 3
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
100% water-based
None
10 million pounds of flexographic-printed flexible packaging
products
24 hours per day, seven days per week
Eight hours including makeready
Table 4.41 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 3
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Faustel ,
50 inches wide, six-color
Surface
Not given
0.067" Polyfibron photopolymer plates:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using hard stick back
Enercon
Chambered doctor blade, except for white,
two-roll without doctor blade
which is a
Not given
Peristaltic air pump in five-gallon bucket
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-59
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.42 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 3a
Sequence
Deckl
Dsck 2
Deck3
Deck 4
Decks
Deck 6 - Not Used
Color
White
Magenta
Cyan
Green
Blue
—
Anilox lDib
300
500
500
240
240
—
Anilox BCM°
5.2
3.2
3.2
7.8
7.8
—
"Deck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
"lines per inch
°billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.43 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 3
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press speed
218ft/min
430 ft/min
Run time
126 minutes
131 minutes
Run length
26,927 feet
47 884 feet
Observations and Comments
LDPE
Toward the end of the run, pinholing was evident in the blue and the green samples.
Also, there was indication of ink drying on the edge of the magenta plate. The pinholing
was considered minimal and typical. The press operator made minor impression
adjustments to compensate. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be a
factor in overall quality.
PE/EVA
The samples taken at the beginning of the run passed the adhesiveness test, although some
light dusting occurred in the green and blue. No trap or dimensional problems occurred.
Poor wetting of the green on white, and pinholing of the blue on white, were evident.
At the end of the run, the cyan and magenta samples passed the adhesiveness test with no
ink removed, but the green and blue failed. The demonstration team noted that these two
colors should be tested again later after they had more time to dry. When tested again, the
blue passed the adhesiveness test, but the green still failed. Increased pinholing was noted
for both the green and the blue. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be
a factor in overall quality.
Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal for this site.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-60
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Site 4: Water-based Ink #W1 on OPP
Table 4.44 Facility Background Information for Site 4
Item
Ink type
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avq. production run
Description
100% water-based
None
3 million pounds of polyethylene and polypropylene
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, five days per week
One week
Table 4.45 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 4
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Kidder Stacey
46 inches wide, six-color
Reverse
400 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont EXL photopolymer plates:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using Foam NY20 stick back with foam lining
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using Foam NY20 stick back with foam lining
Enercon
Chambered
Unknown
Air powered pump from five-gallon buckets covered
with cardboard
Table 4.46 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 4
Sequence
Deckl
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4
Deck 5 - Not Used
Deck 6
Color
Blue
Cyan
Green
Magenta
—
White
Anilox lpia
250
800
250
600
—
250
Anilox BCMb
6.1
2.2
6.8
2.7
—
6.3
"lines per inch
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-61
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.47 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 4
Substrate
OPP
Press speed
450 ft/mina
Run time
123 minutes
Run lenqth
13, 160 feet
aThe press speed varied between 400 ft/min and 450 ft/min.
Observations and Comments
The press was initially ramped to 400 ft/min for the demonstration run. The speed was
then increased to 450 ft/min, after 7,500 feet of film had been consumed. Press speed was
later slowed to 435 ft/min, and then to 415 ft/min for the last roll of substrate due to
drying concerns.
During the run, the pinholing became worse for the green sample, and was also appearing
hi all the other colors. Both pinholing and plugging occurred in the blue. The pinholing
and contamination were considered minimal and typical for this site. The press operator
made minor impression adjustments to compensate during the run. Trap and dimensional
stability were not considered to be factors in overall quality.
Site 5: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA
Table 4.48 Facility Background Information for Site 5
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
100% solvent-based
Four catalytic oxidizers for nine presses
14 million pounds of polyethylene and polypropylene
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, six days per week
Two hours
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-62
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.49 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 5
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Windm6ller & Holscher, Central Impression
24 inches wide, six-color
Surface
400 feet/minute
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using hard stick back
None
Enclosed doctor blade
Stainless steel
Closed-loop, air-powered
Table 4.50 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 5a
Sequence
Deckl
Deck 2 - Not Used
DeckS
Deck 4
DeckS
DeckS
Color
.White
—
Green
Blue
Magenta
Cyan
Anilox Ipi"
300
—
240
240
550
550
Anilox BCM°
6.2
—
4.2
4.2
2.0
2.0
aDeck 1 (white ink) was not used for the PE/EVA substrate.
blines per inch
°billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.51 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 5
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Press speed
400 ft/min
400 ft/min
Run time
57 minutes
56 minutes
Run length
21 ,924 feet
20,858 feet
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-63
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Observations and Comments
LDPE
Some slight plate contamination was evident in the blue sample. Minor pinholing was
apparent in the green sample. The pinholing and contamination were considered minimal
and typical. The press operator made minor impression adjustments to compensate. Trap
and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall quality.
PE/EVA
The samples taken at the beginning of the run passed the adhesiveness test, with no trap
or dimensional problems. The lay was acceptable and tones appeared clean and open in
the light end highlights. At the end of the run, the samples passed the adhesiveness test
with no failure of ink removed. There were, however, some slight problems with solid
formation, which may have been related to impression. The tones were beginning to plug
in the light end highlights. The press team suggested that the ink drying speed was fast.
Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall quality.
Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
result.
Site 6: UV Ink #U2 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP
Table 4.52 Facility Background Information for Site 6
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avg. production run
Description
60% solvent-based inks, 35% water-based inks, and
5% UV inks
Charcoal adsorption
8 million pounds of polyethylene, polypropylene, and paper
flexographic-printed products
24 hours per day, 4.5 days per week
Six to eight hours
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-64
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.53 Press information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 6
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
svstem
Description
Cobden Chadwick
32 inches wide, six-color
Surface and reverse
250 to 350 feet/minute
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 0.020 hard stick back
Q.C. Electronics
Chambered
Unknown
ARO, model 65736-003, air-powered
, with diaphragm
Table 4.54 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 6a
Seauence
Deckl
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4
DeckS
Deck 6 — Not Used
Color
White
Magenta
Cyan
Green
Blue
—
Anilox loib
250
600
600
360
360
—
Anilox BCMC
7.5
2.8
2.8
4.7
4.7
—
aDeck 1 (white ink) not used for the PE/EVA substrate
blines per inch
°billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.55 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 6
S u bst rst©
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPPb
Press speed
344 ft/mina
354 ft/min
344 ft/min
Run time
92 minutes
95 minutes
38 minutes
Run length
32,431 feet
27,691 feet
6.853 feet
aPress speed was averaged between the two rolls (337 ft/min and 351 ft/min).
"The run was aborted due to sample failure of the adhesiveness test and overheating of the chill
roller.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-65
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Observations and Comments
LDPE
Some slight plate contamination and minor pinholing were evident in the white. The
pinholing and contamination were considered minimal and typical. The press operator
made minor impression adjustments to compensate. Although there was still some
wrinkling of the substrate noted, trap was not considered to be a factor in overall quality.
PE/EVA
The samples taken at the beginning of the run revealed that the ink lay was good, but the
print quality appeared dirty. These problems were also noted on the samples taken at the
end of the run. It was also noted that the density of the magenta had increased during the
run, and the attempts to reduce it were unsuccessful. Trap and dimensional stability were
not considered to be a factor in overall quality.
Samples taken at the beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test in all colors.
Adhesiveness tests were performed on samples taken mid-run, at which time the green and
blue both passed, but the other colors failed. By the end of the run, all colors again failed
the adhesiveness test except cyan.
OPP
The samples taken at the beginning of the run failed the adhesiveness test. The white
appeared to have low opacity, evidence of pinholing, and the print quality appeared dirty.
The other colors appeared to have good printability with fair trap. No major problems
with dimensional stability or blocking were noted; however, heat from the lamps caused
wrinkles to form.
The main (final) UV lamp was overheating the chill roller during the run, and the
demonstration team decided that the chill roller was not functioning properly. The
temperature of the chill roller was 155°F, and the chill roller was smoking. The decision
was made to abort the run, and no samples were taken for measurement or analysis.
Site?: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on LDPE and PE/EVA
Table 4.56 Facility Background Information for Site 7
Item
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Ava. production run
Description
100% solvent-based
Two-unit catalytic oxidation
10 million pounds of oriented polypropylene flexographic-
printed products
24 hours per day, five days
weekend
per week plus every other
60 to 60,000 pounds
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-66
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.57 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 7
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Typical production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
Description
Kidder
45.5 inches wide, six-color
Surface
500 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont FAH photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 0.20 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 0.20 compressible stick back
None
Chamber
Unknown
Greymill, electric
Table 4.58 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 7a
Deckl
Deck 2 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck 4
DeckS
Color
White
—
Cyan
Magenta
Green
Blue
Anilox I0ib
200
—
700
700
500
500
8.5
—
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
aDeck 1 (white ink) was not used for the PE/EVA substrate
blines per inch
°billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.59 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 7
LDPE
450 ft/min
Run time
148 minutes
—
Run length
42,000 feet
8.069 feet
aThe run was aborted due to problems with the substrate.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-67
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Observations and Comments
LDPE
The printing quality of the tones and the lay of the inks were acceptable. The trap was
very good, and no blocking occurred. No problems with dimensional stability were noted.
PE/EVA
It was intended that the PE/EVA substrate also be run at this location. The substrate was
mounted on the press, and the "makeready check" was begun. After only 8,069 feet of
film were consumed, the run was aborted. The demonstration team decided that the roll
of substrate they were running was not the correct project control film, due to a supplier
mix-up. In addition, the substrate had wrinkles from poor extrusion, the cores were not
the correct size, and the cores were crushed.
i
No samples were taken from the PE/EVA run, and no measurements were made.
Site 8: UV Ink #U3 on LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP
Table 4.60 Facility Background Information for Site 8
Item
Description
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
This facility is a press manufacturing facility in Germany; it is
not a commercial printing facility. Therefore, no production
data are available.
Avq. production run
Table 4.61 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 8
Item
Press
Size of press
Printing type
Production speed
Plates
Corona treater
Ink metering system
Type of doctor blade
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Description
Windmoller & Holscher, Soloflex
2
25 inches wide, four-color
Surface and reverse
450 feet/minute
0.067" Dupont photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta
unknown
2) Three line plates (green, blue,
unknown
and cyan), mounting
and white), mounting
Kalwar
Chambered
Steel
Air-powered
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
_
4-68
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.62 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 8a
Deck 1 - PE/EVA
Deck 1 - LDPE, OPP
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4
Color
Magenta
White
Green
Blue
Cyan
Anilox lpib
724
200
724
724
724
4.5
8.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
aDeck 1 changed between PE/EVA and LDPE because this site used only a four-color press.
blines per inch
cbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.63 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration at Site 8
LDPE
PE/EVA
262 ft/min
262 ft/min
Run time
65 minutes
63 minutes
15 minutes
Run lenqth
16,643 feet
15,908 feet
4.264 feet
aThe run was aborted due to sample failure of the adhesiveness test and the discoloration of
the OPP to a greenish tint.
Observations and Comments
The performance demonstration at Site 8 was conducted on a press manufacturer's pilot
line, which was not a commercial printing press.
LDPE
The samples taken at the end of the run failed the adhesiveness test. The printing appeared
dirty in the solid areas of the blue ink, but the other colors had good printability. The trap
was good. No problems with dimensional stability were noted, and there was no evidence
of blocking.
PE/EVA
Dirty printing was more evident in the blue solid area on the end of run samples, and the
green was also starting to appear dirty. The tones were inspected for cleanliness and
transfer. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be a factor in overall
quality.
OPP
At the end of the run, the samples failed the adhesiveness test. The printing appeared dirty
in the blue solid area, and was beginning to appear dirty in the green as well. The visual
quality of the other colors was good. Trap was acceptable, there was no blocking, and
there were no problems with dimensional stability. During this run, the OPP substrate
turned a greenish tint. It is believed that the UV lamps caused a photo-reaction in the
substrate.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-69
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Site 9A: Water-based Ink #W4 on OPP
Table 4.64 Facility Background Information for Site 9A
Item
Description
Ink type used
100% water-based
Control equipment
None
Annual production
300 million linear feet
Operating hours
Two 12-hour shifts per day
Avg. production run
8 to 12 hours
Table 4.65 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 9A
Item
Description
Press
Kidder Stacey
Size of press
45.5 inches wide, eight-color
Printing type
Reverse
Typical production speed
500 feet/min
Plates
0.067" Dupont PQS photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
Corona treater
Enercon
Ink metering system
Chamber
Type of doctor blade
White steel
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Powerwise, air-powered
'UBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-70
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.66 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 9A
Deck 1 — Not Used
Deck 2
DeckS
Deck 4 — Not Used
DeckS
Deck6
Deck 7 - Not Used
—
Blue
Cyan
—
Magenta
Green
—
Anilox lDia
—
400
550
—
550
400
— .
300
4.0
2.7
—
2.7
4.0
—
5.5
alines per inch
bbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.67 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
at Site 9A
Run time
66 minutes
34.434 feet
Observations and Comments
The samples taken at the end of the run revealed good printability, good trap, no problems
with dimensional stability, and no blocking. Overall, the makeready and demonstration
run were completed with no uncontrollable complications.
Site 9B: Solvent-based Ink #S1 on OPP
Table 4.68 Facility Background Information for Site 9B
Item
Description
Ink type used
100% water-based
Control equipment
None
Annual production
300 million linear feet
Operating hours
Two 12-hour shifts per day
AVI
g. production run
8 to 12 hours
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-71
September
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.69 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 9B
Item
Description
Press
Kidder Stacey
Size of press
45.5 inches wide, eight-color
Printing type
Reverse
Typical production speed
500 feet/min
Plates
0.067" Dupont PQS photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 1020, 0.020 compressible stick back
Corona treater
None
Ink metering system
Chamber
Type of doctor blade
White steel
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Powerwise, air-powered
Table 4.70 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 9B
Deck 1 - Not Used
Deck 2
Deck3
Deck 4 — Not Used
Decks
Deck 6
Deck 7 - Not Used
Decks
Color
—
Blue
Cyan
—
Magenta
Green
—
White
—
400
550
—
550
400
—
• 300
4.0
2.7
—
2.7
4.0
5 5
alines per inch
"billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.71 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
at Site 9B
OPP
Press speed
415 ft/min
Run time
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-72
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Observations and Comments
Site 9B is normally a 100% water-based ink facility. Facility staff agreed to do a
demonstration run with solvent-based inks on OPP for this project. Overall, the makeready
and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable complications. The samples
taken at the end of the run revealed good printability, good trap, no problems with
dimensional stability, and no blocking.
Site 10: Solvent-based Ink #S2 on OPP
Table 4.72 Facility Background Information for Site 10
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours'
100% solvent-based
One thermal oxidizer for three presses
10.5 million pounds — 95% medium-density polyethylene
(MDPE), 5% low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
24 hours per day, 5 days per week, plus 25 Saturdays
Table 4.73 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 10
Item
=^=
Press
Description
^^
Paper Converting Machine Company, model 7067
Size of press
61 inches wide, eight-color
Printing type
Reverse
Typical production speed
750 to 850 feet/minute
Plates
0.107" BASF photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using 3M 1120 compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using 3M 939 hard stick back
Corona treater
None
Ink metering system
Chambered — two-blade
Type of doctor blade
Unknown
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Powerwise, Underwriters Laboratory, electric, 5 hp,
3450 rpm. 115 to 230 volts
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-73
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.74 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 10
Deck 2
Green
250
9.8
DeckS
Blue
250
10.1
Deck 4
Cyan
800
1.75
Deck 5 - Not Used
Deck6
Magenta
800
1.6
Deck 7 — Not Used
Deck 8
'lines per inch
bbillion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.75 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
at Site 10
Press speed
-- ' •
600 ft/min
Observations and Comments
This site normally prints LDPE, but agreed to print the OPP with a reverse ink system
The samples taken at the end of the run showed poor solid formation in the magenta with
all other colors having good printability. The magenta also appeared weak, attributed to
high amlox line count and low volume. Trap and dimensional stability were not
considered to be factors in overall quality.
Overall, the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired quality
result. n J
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-74
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER4
PERFORMANCE
Site 11: UV Ink #U1 on LDPE (no slip)
Table 4.76 Facility Background Information for Site 11
Ink type used
Control equipment
Annual production
Operating hours
Avq. production run
80 to 85% water-based, 15 to 20% UV
None
50 million pounds of polyethylene flexographic-printed
products
24 hours per day, five days per week
Three hours to two weeks H
Table 4.77 Press Information for the Performance Demonstration at Site 11
Description
Press
UTECO, Amber 808
Size of press
61 inches wide, ten-color
Printing type
Surface
Production speed
820 feet/minute
Plates
0.107" Dupont EXL photopolymer:
1) Two process plates (magenta and cyan) mounted
using compressible stick back
2) Three line plates (green, blue, and white) mounted
using hard stick back
Corona treater
None
Ink metering system
Chambered
Type of doctor blade
Unknown
Ink pumping and mixing
system
Arrow, air-powered, diaphragm
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-75
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
Table 4.78 Color Sequence and Anilox Configurations for Site 11
Deck4-Not Used
Decks
Cyan
500
2.7
Deck6
Green
360
5.6
Deck 7 - Not Used
DeckS
Blue
360
5.6
Deck 9 — Not Used
billion cubic microns per square inch
Table 4.79 Summary Information from the Performance Demonstration
at Site 11
LDPEa
Press soeed
400 ft/min
aThe LDPE was extruded with no-slip additives.
Observations and Comments
This site chose to print its normal production LDPE substrate instead of the DfE-control
LDPE. This site-standard LDPE substrate was extruded with no slip additives. Overall,
the makeready and demonstration run were completed with no uncontrollable
complications. The printing problems encountered were considered normal and the press
operators were easily able to adjust the printing environment to obtain the desired aualitv
result. J
The samples taken at the end of the run continued to show good printability in all colors
with continued blade streaking in the cyan. Dry ink was continually evident on the blue
anilox roll. Trap and dimensional stability were not considered to be factors in overall
quality.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-76
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
REFERENCES
1.
Schilstra, Durk. "UV Flexo: The European Situation." American Ink Maker, March 1997: 52-
55,
2. Podhajny, Richard M. "UV Flexo - Still Growing, Still Facing Challenges." Paper Film Foil
Converter, June 1998: 64, 66-67.
3.
4.
5.
7.
Schilstra, 1997, op. cit.
Atkinson, David. "Cationic UV Flexo, An Alternative for Wide-web Film Printing?" Proc. of
RadTech Europe 97. 16-18 June 1997, Lyon, France: 373-377.
Schilstra, 1997, op. cit.
Midlik, Elinor R. "FQC UV Wide Web Committee Prepares for the Year 2002." Flexo May
1997: 150-153.
Otton, Dan. "Advancements in UV Ink Technology." Flexo April 1997: 58-59.
8. Scheraga, Dan. "Energy Curing Shows Promise in Productivity, Lower Emissions." Chemical
Market Reporter April 27, 1998: 32.
. 9. Lawson, Kenneth. "Status of the North American UV/EB Market." Industrial Paint & Powder
Nov. 1996:22-25.
10. Scheraga, 1998, op. cit.
11. Zinnbauer, Fred E. "Basking in the Sun With Cool UV." Flexo Aug. 1998: 64-67.
12. Ibid.
13 Gentile, Deanna. "Ink Outlook: Steady Growth and Evolving Technologies." Paint and
Coatings 86(1996): 40-42.
14. Teng, Andy. "Flexo Report." Ink World May/June 1996: 70.
15. Ibid.
16. Otton, 1997, op. cit.
17. Lawson, 1996, op. cit.
18. Atkinson, 1997, op. cit.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
-------
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE
This page is intentionally blank.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
4-78
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Chapter 5i Cost
CHAPTER CONTENTS
1 5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
Material Costs
Labor Costs
Capital Costs for New Presses
Capital Costs for Retrofitting a Press
Energy Costs ........... •
Uncertainties
1 5.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
Summary of Cost Analysis Results
Discussion of Cost Analysis Results
1 5.3 DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS ............................................ ^
Regulatory Costs ............ ............................................... 5_25
Insurance and Storage Requirements ........................................... "
Other Environmental Costs and Benefits .........................................
REFERENCES [[[ • .............
5-27
IADDITIONAL REFERENCES [[[
INTRODUCTION
ILis chanter presents a comparative cost analysis of solvent-based, water-based and UV-cured ink
systems "and ^theavaSSyofda^^
the actual experience of any given printing facility.
costs.
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
>: Section 5.2 summarizes the overall costs based on the expense cateqories
/stem and by ink-substrate combination. The analysis shows the relative costs
and also indicates the cost drivers within each system. Detailed results of the cost
I in Appendix 5-B.
[DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS: Section 5.3 discusses costs that often are often hidden from
typical accounting analyses but that can affect company profits. These include regulatory co^lsurance
[and storage costs, and costs related to worker health and natural resource use. insurance
HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS
Material costs (ink and additives) and capital costs were the two most significant expense
categories. Each accounted for approximately 40% of the costs considered in this analysis
^n^nSdhLnck^had *h! I?™,63! material costs Water-based inks were consumed at a lower rate
than solvent-based ink and had a lower per-pound cost than UV-cured inks
Labor costs were lowest for solvent-based inks at the observed press speeds primarily because
solvent-based inks were printed at the fastest speeds. When labor costs were'calculated for the
methodology speed, labor costs were equal across the three ink systems
Water-based inks had the lowest per-hour capital costs, because the presses did not require
poHuton control equ.pment or UV curing lamps. However, solvent-based inks had the lowest pe!
image capital costs because of the higher observed press speeds.
!Hatlerrhoa^d ',!lk;!-?ad.the '°West energy costs' The primary reason for tnese lower costs is that
water-based inks did not require pollution control equipment or UV curing lamps.
« ,. --*--•-—-links were the least expensive to use. Solvent-based inks were the next least
y UV-cured inks.
CAVEATS
D3Sed °" b?h the °bserved press sPeeds and the methodology press speed
t r P!TS Spe,6d 'S Cmdal t0 COSt estimates because if more Product can be printed
H «, ' n ^ C°StS (e'9" Capital and labor) are distributed across more salable product
costsm^yL^lfferS 3
"
n • ° not rePresent al1 expenses encountered at a flexographic
K ?"? S|9n'^ant factorthat was excluded was substrate (the material, such as film Sat
)- SubstratesareamaJ°r expense, but because theircosts are independen of the fnks/stem
Fnir ^ m?oded ,"! the analysiS- °ther costs' such as those discussed qualitativeHn
Environmental and Regulatory Costs, also are not included in the quantitative results qua"iaweiy
Assumptions in this analysis may not apply to all facilities. For example, it was assumed that pollution
control equipment is not necessary with water-based ink systems. In some locations ox dize^s in fact
may be required if inks exceed regulatory minimum VOC content thresholds OXICM2ers In fac*
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
This section discusses the categories of costs that were analyzed for the different ink
systems, formulas that were used in calculations, and assumptions that were made. This
information will allow the reader to understand the basis for the results that are described
in the next section.
The primary sources of data were the performance demonstrations and estimates provided
by flexographic printers and suppliers. The model facility used in the risk assessment
section was also used for the cost analysis. Model facility assumptions were based on
averages of the information reported hi the questionnaire completed by each performance
demonstration site. A detailed methodology of the cost analysis is in Appendix 5-A.
Material Costs
The material costs estimated in this analysis are inks and additives. Representative
substrate costs are also presented in this section to give a fuller picture of printing costs,
but substrate is not included in the rest of the analysis because during production, its costs
do not vary among ink systems. The specific prices that any given printer pays for
materials are expected to vary with the volume purchased and the relationship between
printer and supplier.
Ink Costs
Ink prices vary with the type of ink (solvent-based, water-based, or UV-cured) and color.
Generally speaking, white inks are least expensive, primary colors are slightly more
expensive, and other colors or custom colors are most expensive.
For this analysis, one price was estimated for white ink and one for the other four colors.
These ink prices are listed hi Table 5.1. It is important to note that these are average
prices, and the price that a printer pays may be either higher or lower than those presented
here.
Table 5.1 Average Ink Prices3
Solvent-based ($/lb)
White
Other colors
$1.40
$2.80
Water-based
($/lb)
$1.60
$3.00
UV-cured
($/lb)
$7.25
$10.00
a Based on November 1998 prices.
Source: References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11,12, 13.
To determine ink consumption costs, the ink prices were multiplied by the amount of ink
used for each performance demonstration run. In addition, the test image dimensions and
repeat length were used in the calculations. Information about the test image is presented
below. The repeat length indicates the distance from the beginning of an image to the
beginning of the first repetition of the image.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Test Image Information
Line colors: blue, green, and white
I Process colors: cyan and magenta
Image dimensions: 16 inches x 20 inches (320 sq. inches or 2.22 sq. feet)
Repeat length: 16 inches (1.33 feet)
The ink costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the
following formulas:
Ink cost per 6,000 images = I x 2.22 ftVimage x 6,000 images
Ink cost per 6,000 ft2 of image = I x 6,000 ft2
where
I - ink price ($/lb) x amount of ink used (Ib) / amount of substrate used (ft2)
= ink cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present the average ink costs for each ink-substrate combination per
6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image, respectively. The site-specific ink costs and a
sample calculation are provided in Appendix 5-B. Both ink and ink additives are included
in the average costs, and a detailed table providing site-specific consumption data is
provided in Appendix 6-A.
Additive Costs
In most of the performance demonstration runs, additives were mixed with the inks to
achieve and maintain desired viscosity and performance. Specifically, extenders, solvents
and/or water were added to the solvent-based and water-based inks. Also, ammonia^
reducers, cross-linkers, and/or defoamers were added to the water-based inks, and acetate
was added to one solvent-based ink (Site 10). No additives were used in the UV-cured ink
performance demonstrations, with the exception of a low-viscosity monomer added to the
green ink at one site (Site 11).
The methodology for estimating ink additive costs was similar to that for inks. Based on
input from printers and suppliers, the Dffi team determined average prices for each
additive.1-3-13-14 Extender was $2.00/lb, solvent Was $1.00/lb, water was given no charge,
and other solvent- and water-based ink additives were $0.45/lb. A price for the UV
additive (monomer) was not determined, because ink manufacturers state that extra
monomer is not typically added to UV ink at press side. '
The additive costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the
same formulas as for the normalized ink costs.
The estimated average ink additive costs for each ink-substrate combination also are
presented in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. The site-specific ink 'additive costs are provided in
Appendix 5-B.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-4
September 2000
-------
COST
w
o>
D)
(0
O
Q
O
o
n
I
Q.
£
|
to
3
•o
c
(0
o
1.
E
I
o
O
5
•o
•o
(0
o
O)
2
I
01
in
1
co
c
to.J
§3
£
o
O CD
E "°
c
ۤg
D
(O
i»
|i
o> o co -s -^
". w- S | o
= .
• « V O
• f
ll
^ co 5 =§.f .22
.: re « S-cS
w.2
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-6
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
Substrate Costs
Substrate costs are a function of the price of the substrate and the amount of substrate
used. Based on input from printers and suppliers, an average price was determined for the
three types of substrate used in the performance demonstrations — LDPE, PE/EVA, and
OPP. Table 5.4 presents the substrate prices, the conversion factors used to convert
square feet of substrate to pounds, and the substrate costs. The substrate costs per 6,000
images and per 6,000 ft2 of image were calculated using the following formulas:
Substrate cost per 6,000 images
Substrate cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
= S x 2.22 ft2/image X 6,000 images
= S x 6,000 ft2
where
S
= substrate price ($/lb) x conversion rate (lb/ft2)
= substrate cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
Table 5.4 Average Substrate Costs and Conversion Rates (ft2 to Ibs)
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
Price
($/Ib)
$0.77
$0.82
Conversion
rate (lb/ft2)
0.0134
0.0258
0.0072
Substrate
cost per ft2
($/ft2)
$0.01
$0.02
$0.01
Average cost
per 6,000
images
$138
$282
$144
Average cost
per 6,000 ft2 of
image
$62
$127
$65
Sources: References 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16.
Substrate costs are not included in the cost analysis. The price of substrate can be quite
variable and therefore would introduce additional uncertainty to the analysis. Also,
because substrate consumption does not vary by ink system, it does not need to be included
in comparisons between systems. Average substrate costs are supplied above, however,
to provide a.more complete tally of total costs a printer might encounter.
Labor Costs
For this cost analysis, labor costs are primarily a function of printers' compensation rates
and the time it takes to print the product. Labor rates include the wage rate of a press
operator and one assistant, the fringe rate, and the overhead rate. This cost analysis
assumes that labor rates do not vary with the ink system or the substrate.
Wage Rate
Industry sector-specific wage rates are typically available from the U.S. Department of
Labor; however, obtaining an average flexographic industry labor rate was complicated
by the fact that the flexographic industry sector is combined with other printing sectors in
SIC 2759. To obtain a wage rate indicative of the industry sector, an average hourly wage
rate for the industry of $11.49-" was used as a baseline and confirmed by performance
demonstration site contacts in 1997.2,4,5,7,11,12,15,18
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-7
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Fringe Rate
The average press operator or assistant received fringe benefits of holidays, vacations, sick
leave, supplemental pay (premium pay for overtime work on weekends and holidays,'shift
differentials, and non-production bonuses such as lump-sum payments provided in lieu of
wage increases), insurance benefits (life, health, sickness, and accident), and legally
required benefits (Social Security). In private industry, blue-collar workers had an
average fringe rate of 26.5% of total compensation.19 Total compensation of $15 63 per
hour includes a fringe rate of $4.14 per hour.
Overhead Rate t
The overhead factor for the flexographic industry was calculated using the following
formula: 6
Overhead factor = (overhead costs) / (direct labor)
Overhead costs = Rent and heat + fire and sprinkler insurance + indirect labor +
direct supplies + repair to equipment + general factory +
administrative and selling overhead
Using data from the flexographic industry and the above formula, the average industry
overhead factor was 0.41, or an overhead rate of $6.41/hour. For a detailed look at how
the overhead rate was calculated, see Appendix 5-A.
Based on the wage, fringe, and overhead rates listed in Table 5.5, the overall labor rate
for each worker was $22.04 per hour, or $44.08 per hour for both a press operator and
assistant.
Table 5.5 Summary of Labor Rate Calculations
Labor cost component Calculation
Wage rate from industry estimates
Fringe rate 26.5% of total compensation3
Overhead rate 0.41 times total compensation3
Total per-worker labor rate
Rate ($/hr)
$11.49
$4.14
$6.41
$22.04
Total compensation equals wage plus fringe.
Total Labor Cost
To calculate the total labor cost, the labor rate was multiplied by the average amount of
time generally needed to print 6,000 images and 6,000 ft2 of image (based on press speed)
This simplified calculation omits makeready and clean-up costs. The labor cost estimates
were calculated using the following formulas:
Labor cost per 6,000 images = L x 2.22 fWimage x 6,000 images
Labor cost per 6,000 ft2 of image = L X 6,000 ft2
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-8
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER;
COST
where
L =' labor rate ($/hour) x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2) / press speed
(ft/hour)
= labor cost per ft2 ($/ft2) '
Assuming an average press speed for a flexographic press was extremely difficult.
Variables such as the test image, the age of the press, the desired quality of the product,
and the skill of the press operator affect the press speed considerably. The performance
demonstration methodology dictated a press speed of 300 to 500 feet per minute (fpm).
Therefore, the site demonstratio'ns were not illustrative of the potential of a press for a
specific ink system. Presses may have been held back from or pushed beyond their
optimal running speeds. Using the typical production speed of the press reported by the
facility was not realistic because of the variety of product quality. For example, one site
ran at 700 fpm and produced a low quality product whereas another site ran at 350 fpm
and produced a very high quality product. Finally, few data exist that support an industry
average press speed for each ink system.
The cost analysis used the average press speed from the performance demonstrations
(Table 5.6) for each ink type to determine labor and capital costs. The parenthetical
numbers in the first row indicate the number of demonstration runs on which the data are
based.
Table 5.6 Average Press Speed Data from the Performance Demonstrations
Average feet per minute
Average feet per hour
Solvent-based
453 (6)
27,200
Water-based
394 (7)
23,600
UV-cured
340 (4)
20,400
Table 5 7 presents average labor costs for each ink system using the average observed
press speed and the methodology press speed (500 feet per minute). When the
methodology press speed is used, the labor costs were neutralized for the three ink
systems. When the average observed press speeds are used, the labor cost is lowest for
solvent-based inks (i.e., these ran at the fastest press speeds during the demonstrations).
Compared to solvent-based inks, the labor cost for water-based inks was 15 % higher, and
the labor rate for UV-curable inks was 33% higher. The site-specific labor costs and a
sample calculation are provided in Appendix 5-B.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-9
Septet
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Table 5.7 Labor Costs Based on Press Speeds
Ink
Labor
rate
($/hr)
Press
speed
(ft2/hr)
Labor cost
perftz($/ft2)
Average cost
per 6,000
Average cost
per 6,000 ft2 of
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$44.08
$44.08
$44.08
45,300
39,400
34,000
$0.000973
$0.00112
$0.00130
$12.96
$14.90
$17.27
$5.84
$6.71
$7.78
Based on Methodology Press Speed- 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$44.08
$44.08
$44.08
50,000
50,000
50.000
$0.000882
$0.000882
$0.000882
$11.74
$11.74
$5.29
$5.29
Capital Costs for New Presses
Capital costs are those costs associated with purchasing or modifying the equipment. Two
scenarios were examined: buying a new press outfitted for a specific ink technology and
retrofitting an existing press from one ink technology to another.
The data used for capital costs were acquired from press manufacturers, suppliers, and
flexographic printers. The capital costs were not gathered at the performance
demonstration sites due to the variances in the ages of the presses and, therefore, in the
representativeness of the costs.
The capital cost of a new press included the cost of a base press plus any modifications
required for each ink system. The base press was assumed to be an eight-color, 48-inch
press. The cost for a base press also included installation. The cost of a new base press
ranged from $600,000 to $5 million, with an average cost of about $2 5
million.9-10-13-14-16-17-20 The base press cost included the cost of the following:
• chambered doctor blades
• peristaltic ink pumps
• chill rollers
• covered ink/water rollers
• forced hot air dryers (between-color and overhead final)
• electrical drive
• in-feed devices
• ink agitators
• rewind unit
• roll stands/reels
• water union
• web break detectors
• press installation
• one-week training
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-10
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
The exception to the above list is that a UV press will not require hot air dryers; the base
price for a UV press therefore would be reduced to reflect the absence of this
approximately $100,000 equipment.21 All other equipment modifications specific to the
ink systems were added to the base press cost. These costs included the cost of pollution
control devices which might have been required if solvent-based inks were used, the cost
of UV lamps, etc. A summary of the capital costs is presented in Table 5.8, followed by
a more detailed discussion of each ink system.
Table 5.8 Summary of Capital Costs for New Presses
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Base press
cost ($)
$2.5 million
$2.5 million
$2.4 million
Additional Components
pollution Control
corona treater
corona treater, UV lamps,
power supplies, and
cooling units
Additional
cost ($)
$128,000
$25,000
$200,000
Total capital
cost ($)
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
Solvent-based Ink Presses
The primary additional equipment expense in running solvent-based ink is an oxidizer
needed for pollution control. The analysis assumed that an "average" wide web facility
has four 48" presses and two catalytic oxidizers, with an air flow of 5,800 cubic feet per
minute (cfm) to each oxidizer. The cost estimates, based on these characteristics, are
shown in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9 Catalytic Oxidizer Costs3
Component
Cost
Oxidizer
Installation
Testing
$200,000
$50,000
$5,000-$6,000
Total
$255,000
aThese costs represent an oxidizer serving two presses. The per-press costs
used in the analysis are half of these amounts.
Source: References 22 and 23.
Because each oxidizer is assumed in this analysis to control the emissions from two
presses, this cost is spread over two presses. Therefore, the cost of a pollution control
system per press is expected to be $128,000. This cost may vary depending on facility-
specific variables, such as the location of the oxidizer, duct runs, location in the country,
and whether the duct is insulated.14
An alternative type of oxidizer is the regenerative thermal oxidizer (see Chapter 7 for
details). The cost of purchasing, installing, and testing this system is similar to that of a
catalytic oxidizer. During operation, it may result in lower costs because the catalyst does
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-1-
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
not need to be replaced. Including the cost of either type of oxidizer, a press using a
solvent-based ink system was estimated to cost $2.6 million.
Water-based Ink Presses
A new water-based press will come equipped with all necessary equipment, with the
exception of a corona treater. A corona treater costs approximately $25,000,24 resulting
in a total cost estimate of $2.5 million for a press using a water-based ink system.
UV-cured Ink Presses
The primary cost for UV-cured ink presses is the UV curing system. The equipment
consists of lamps, power supplies, cooling units, and a corona treater. According to a
press manufacturer, this equipment costs approximately $200,000 for a wide web
flexographic printing press.20 This resulted in an estimate of $2.6 million for a press using
a UV-cured ink system.
Total Capital Costs for New Presses
To incorporate capital costs into this cost analysis, the capital costs were annualized (and
calculated on an hourly basis) per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2 of image. The annual
expense can be translated into an hourly expense by dividing by the annual operating
hours.
The annual cost was determined by a present-worth-to-annuity calculation, as follows:
A = annual capital cost
T = total cost (price of press)
i = interest or depreciation rate
n = lifetime of equipment
The average annual industry depreciation rate was 15% per year,25 and the estimated
lifetime of a press not subject to a substantial modification or upgrade is 20 years.21 The
hourly capital cost estimates were based on the following calculation:
Capital cost per 6,000 images
Capital cost per 6,000 ft2 of image
C x 2.22 fWimage x 6,000 images
C X 6,000 ft2
where
C =
and
capital cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
hourly capital cost ($/hr) x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2) / average
press speed (ft/hr)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-12
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Depreciation rate
Annual operating hours
Hourly capital cost ($/hr)
= 15%
= 4,200 hours per year
= A ($/yr) / annual operating hours (hr/yr)
= A ($/yr) / 4,200 hours per year
Table 5.10 presents the hourly capital costs of each ink system.
Table 5.10 Capital Costs for New Presses
Capital cost
($)
Hourly
capital cost
($)
Cost per ft2
of image
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
$98.90
$95.10
$98.90
$0.00218
$0.00241
$0.00291
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based
Water-based
$2.6 million
$2.5 million
$2.6 million
$98.90
$95.10
$98.90
$0.00198
$0.00190
$0.00198
Cost per
6,000
images
$29.08
$32.15
$38.75
$26.35
$25.33
$26.35
6,000 ft2 of
image
$13.10
$14.18
$17.45
$11.87
$11.41
$11.87
Capital Costs for Retrofitting a Press
Alternatively a printer may retrofit an existing press for a new technology rather than
purchase a new press. The feasibility and costs of a retrofit need to be addressed on a
case-by-case basis, because retrofitting costs can vary considerably depending on the age
and type of press. The newer the press, the fewer and easier the changes. For example,
most newer presses come equipped with diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems and
chambered doctor blades. This analysis presents possible capital costs that may be
incurred for a retrofit; if newer equipment such as that mentioned above were present, the
retrofit process would be less expensive.
In this analysis, retrofit costs included only the additional costs of equipment. The labor,
training, and downtime costs associated with a retrofit were not included because these
costs are highly variable and situation-specific. This analysis assumed a retrofit on an
older, six-color, 48-inch press. The following cost estimate of the equipment necessary
for the change to a new ink system was developed from discussions with printers who have
changed ink systems and from discussions with manufacturers and suppliers who are
familiar with the changes.
Solvent-based to Water-based Ink System
A retrofit from an older solvent-based ink system to a water-based ink system may require
some of the following equipment changes depending on the age of the press:16
• reconfiguring anilox rolls
• adding chambered doctor blades
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-13
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
• adding diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems
• adding a corona treater and auxiliary corona treating material
• adding or retrofitting existing blowers to increase the blowing capacity
• changing plate materials and mounting
Estimates to retrofit from a solvent-based to water-based ink system on a 48-inch press are
in the range of $60,000 to $100,000.9 While a solvent-based ink system press can run
water-based ink on well-treated film and at much lower speeds without a retrofit,
retrofitting improves substrate wettability and/or increases drying capability.3
Solvent-based to UV-cured Ink System
A retrofit from a solvent-based to a UV-cured ink system requires similar equipment
changes to those required for a retrofit from a solvent-based ink system to a water-based
ink system. The changes required for this retrofit may include the following:16
• buying and installing UV-cured lamps and the power units to support the lamps
• purchasing and installing chillers to cool the equipment
• reconfiguring anilox rolls
• adding chambered doctor blades
• adding diaphragm or peristaltic ink pumping systems
• adding a corona treater and auxiliary corona treating material
• changing plate materials and mounting
Retrofits from a solvent-based to UV-cured ink system are estimated to be in the range of
$400,000 to $500,000.9 Given this cost, most printers would probably purchase a new
press rather than retrofit an existing one. In addition, many older flexographic printing
presses cannot be retrofitted for UV production.9-14 While the major equipment
requirements are listed above, additional engineering or "tinkering" may be necessary to
obtain the product quality required. Many flexographic printers, manufacturers, and
suppliers do not believe this kind of retrofit can produce a saleable product. '•3-10-13-26
Water-based to UV-cured Ink System
In retrofitting a press from a water-based to UV-cured ink system, the following equipment
changes are necessary:16
• adding UV lamps and power units
• removing blowers
• adding chillers
• possibly adding plate materials
On a six-deck press, retrofit costs are expected to be roughly $30,000 per deck, or
$180,000.5 Water-based ink systems cannot always be retrofitted for UV production.
Many flexographic printers, manufacturers, and suppliers do not believe this kind of
retrofit can produce a saleable product with an older press, although many new presses are
being manufactured with retrofits in mind.1-3'10-13'26
UV-cured to Water-based Ink System
Although retrofitting from a UV-cured to a water-based ink system is not common, one
site using UV decided to return to a water-based system. The equipment changes included
removing the UV lamps, power equipment, and chillers, and adding blowers. If the press
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
had originally been a solvent- or water-based press, then the blowers would simply need
to be re-installed, at a cost of approximately $32,000.5 If the press had been purchased
for a UV-cured ink system, it would be necessary to purchase and install a dryer system,
which is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.21
Energy Costs
The energy use for four types of flexographic printing equipment—hot air drying systems,
catalytic oxidizers, corona treaters, and UV curing systems—was estimated for the three
ink systems (see Chapter 6: Energy and Resource Consumption). Energy costs were
calculated using the energy consumption rates for this equipment and national averages of
electricity and natural gas costs. Given the typical size and total sales of a flexographic
printing facility, an average electricity cost of $0.0448/kWh27 and an average gas cost of
$3.14/million Btu28 were used; however, these figures can vary substantially depending on
the location and size of the facility.
To calculate energy costs, electricity and natural gas consumption figures were taken from
Chapter 6. Energy costs per 6,000 images and 6,000 ft2 were then calculated with the
following equations:
Energy cost per 6,000 images = (E + G) x 2.22 ft2/image x 6,000 images
Energy cost per 6,000 ft2 of image = (E + G) x 6,000 ft2
where
E
G =
electricity, cost ($/kWh) x [electricity consumption (kWh/hour) / press speed
(ft/hour)] x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2)
electricity cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
natural gas cost ($/Btu) x [natural gas consumption (Btu/hour) / press speed
(ft/hour)] x repeat length per ft2 of image (ft/ft2)
natural gas cost per ft2 ($/ft2)
Uncertainties
Efforts were made to obtain data as representative of the industry as possible. However,
differences in the ink systems may have had further cost implications that were not
captured in the data. Some of the differences may have been difficult to capture in the
time span of a two-hour run, may not have been easily quantifiable, or may have been too
minute to identify given the methodology and testing. When interpreting the results of this
analysis and applying them to a particular operation, the following uncertainties should be
considered.
Ink Maintenance
The print run conditions may affect the level of ink maintenance more significantly than
was demonstrated at the volunteer sites. UV inks do not dry on anilox rolls or other rolls
and hence the color strength remains constant; in addition, during multi-day runs the
number of cleanups can be reduced. Using solvent-based inks and water-based inks can
increase the amount of labor, run time, clean-up, and waste because of the need to add or
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
remove ink multiple times during a run. These differences, which make UV more
competitive, are not reflected in the cost figures due to difficulties in their quantification.
Productivity
Productivity, was another area that was not effectively captured in the performance
demonstrations. The performance demonstration methodology specified a printing run at
the rate of 300 to 500 fpm. Some sites, however, had to slow down their runs to increase
drying times, whereas other sites increased their press speeds for some runs. For
example, at Site 10, the press speed was 600 fpm due to the facility's standard operating
procedures. The data do not shed light on the controversial issue of whether one ink can
be run faster than the others while producing a product quality that is better or comparable
to that of the other inks. '
Makeready Variables
The experience of the press operators and the type and age of the press have a greater
influence on the makeready time than does the type of ink. This is because the main
concerns in makeready are registration and the print impression. The amount of substrate
used in makeready and the time required for makeready are based on the ability of the
press operator to adjust color and viscosity. However, industry experience indicates that
proper color strength can be achieved fastest with UV inks.
Clean-up and Waste Disposal Costs
Clean-up and disposal practices were observed qualitatively for the three ink systems at
the performance demonstration sites. During the performance demonstrations, the
following cleaning agents were used for each ink type:
• Solvent-based ink: alcohol or alcohol/acetate blend
• Water-based ink: water, or water/ammonia/alcohol blend
• UV-cured ink: alcohol, alcohol/acetate blend, or alcohol/water/soap blend
Appendix 6-A presents more detailed information for each site, and Section 6.5, Clean-up
and Waste Disposal Procedures, provides more information on these procedures.
Differences in the clean-up components among the three ink systems include the following:
• The materials are least expensive for water-based inks.
• The type of press is a major factor in how long it takes to clean.
• UV presses can be shut down overnight or for extended periods of time without
clean-up procedures. If covered, the inks will not cure in the wells, so the press
can be started up with minimal ink preparation.
• Solvent-based ink waste is the most expensive to dispose of because it is often
characterized as hazardous waste. Water may or may not require the same costs,
depending on the solvent content of the ink and location of the facility. UV waste
disposal costs may be substantially lower for two reasons: the wastes often are not
designated as hazardous under RCRA, and less waste is generated by UV.
Clean-up and waste disposal costs were not included in the quantitative analysis, however,
because it was not possible to calculate reliably the costs associated with these procedures.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Site-Specific Limitations
Each printing site was unique, which created some challenges for the performance
demonstration. For some of the sites, specific questions or data points were not applicable
because of the ink system, the type of site, insufficient data, or the failure of a test run.
For these situations, inconsistencies were identified, the data were omitted, or reliable
follow-up information was substituted from phone interviews with printers.
Although most of the sites were actual printing facilities, one UV site was a press
manufacturer in Germany. The press used at this site was a demonstration version and
was not used to print saleable product. As a result, the data from this site did not contain
annual or plant-wide costs. Information on clean-up, waste disposal, and ink and substrate
costs also was not available. In addition, the makeready at this site was completed before
the observation team arrived at the site. Therefore, the makeready data for the time and
feet run were not observed by the team.
Another performance demonstration site (Site 11) used a different substrate than specified
in the methodology. Demonstrations run at this site used LDPE that was extruded with
no slip additives, in accordance with the facility's standard procedure.
5.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section presents the results of the cost analysis for each ink-substrate combination.
This analysis can help the reader to compare costs among solvent-based, water-based, and
UV-cured ink systems. Site-specific cost information is shown in Appendix 5-B.
Summary of Cost Analysis Results
Table 5.11 presents an overall summary of the costs per 6,000 images and per 6,000 ft2
of image, broken out by substrate and ink type. Table 5.12 provides an average cost
breakdown of four major cost elements (materials, excluding substrate; labor; capital for
a new press; and energy costs). Table 5.13 presents cost summaries for each performance
demonstration site. These costs do not include substrate, makeready or clean-up.
For each substrate, water-based inks were the least expensive. Solvent-based inks were
slightly more expensive than water-based inks (1% more for LDPE, 36% more for
PE/EVA and 9% for OPP), and UV-cured inks were the most expensive (29% more than
water-based inks on LDPE, 46% more for PE/EVA). When the figures are calculated
based on the methodology press speed, water would again be the least expensive. Solvent-
based inks would cost 31 % more, and UV 39 % more than water-based inks. The numbers
in parentheses in Table 5.11 indicates the number of performance demonstration runs on
which the data are based.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Table 5.11 Cost Summary for Ink-Substrate Combinations
Solvent-based
Cost per
6,000
images
Cost per
6,000 ft2
of image
Water-based
Cost per
6,000
images
Cost per
6,000 ft2
of image
UV-cured
Cost per
6,000
images
Cost per
6,000 ft2
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
$92 (2)
$80 (1)
$72 (2)
$42 (2)
$36(1)
$32 (2)
$91 (2)
$59 (2)
$66 (3)
$41 (2)
$26 (2)
$30 (3)
$117(2)
$86 (2)
$53 (2)
$39 (2)
n/aa
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
$85
$72
$72
$38
$33
$32
$62
$52
$59
$28
$24
$27
$103
$57
$46
$26
n/aa
n/a = not appncaoie; there were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
demonstrations.
As shown in Table 5.12, material and capital costs (excluding substrate) accounted for the
majority of costs. Averaged across the eight ink-substrate combinations, materials (ink
and additives) represented 38% of the costs, and capital costs were 41% of the total.
Labor accounted for 14% to 24% of the total cost, and energy accounted for 1 % to 4%.
Several factors affect press speed, including labor, equipment, and handling. However,
because the differing press speeds observed during the performance demonstrations may
cause a misrepresentation of the comparative costs associated with the different ink
systems, the costs were also calculated based on the methodology speed of 500 fpm. If
all three ink systems had been run at the methodology speed, the labor cost differences and
some capital cost differences would have been neutralized. Water-based inks would still
have been the least expensive. Solvent-based inks would have been more expensive than
water-based inks (39% more for LDPE, 38% more for PE/EVA, and 22% for OPP). UV-
cured inks would have been the most expensive on LDPE (66% more than water-based
inks on LDPE), but would no longer have been the most expensive on PE/EVA (10%
more than water-based inks, but 21 % less than solvent-based inks).
Table 5.13 presents a cost summary for each performance demonstration site. A detailed
breakdown of costs for each site is provided in Appendix 5-B.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-18
September 2000
-------
COST
Isl ini IL.l\\/ . :
Table 5.12 Cost Breakdown for Ink-Substrate Combinations
If
Substrate
_DPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Ink
Solvent-based
(2 sites)
Water-based
(2 sites)
UV-cured
(2 sites)
Solvent-based
(1 site)
Water-based
(2 sites)
UV-cured
(2 sites)
Solvent-based
(2 sites)
Water-based
(3 sites)
Component
materials
abor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
materials
labor
capital
energy
total
Average cost
per 6,000
imaqes
$46
$14
$31
$1
$93
$24
$21
$45
$1
$91
$63
$16
$36
$3
$117
$34
$14
$31
$1
$81
$13
$14
$30
$1
$59
$19
$20
$44
$4
$86
$32
$12
$27
$1
$73
$22
$14
$29
$1
$66
per 6,000 ft2 of
imaqe
$21
$6
$14
$1
$42
$11
$9
$20
$1
$41
$28
$7
$16
$1
$53
$15
$6
$14
$1
$37
$6
$6
$14
<$1
$26
$8
$9
$20
$2
$39
$14
$5
$12
$1
$33
$10
$6
$13
<$1
$30
Percent
of total
15%
34%
2%
100%
26%
23%
49%
2%
100%
53%
14%
30%
3%
100%
42%
17%
39%
2%
100%
22%
24%
52%
2%
100%
22%
23%
51%
4%
100%
44%
17%
37%
2%
100%
34%
21%
44%
1%
100%
n/aa
a n/a = not applicable; there were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
demonstrations.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-19
September
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Table 5.13 Cost Summary for Each Performance Demonstration Site
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Product
Line
#S2
#W3
#U1.
#U2
#S2
#W3
#U2
#U3
#S1
#S2
#W1
#W2
#W4
Site
5
7
2
3
11
6
5
7
2
3
6
8
9B
10
4
1
9A
Cost per
$102
$82
$73
$109
$123
$111
$89
$106
$64
$53
$83
$89
$76
$67
$71
$66
$61
Cost per 6,000
$46
$37
$33
$49
$56
$50
$40
$26
$29
$24
$37
$40
$36
$31
$32
$30
$27
n/aa
a n/a = not applicable; there were rio successful
demonstrations.
runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
Discussion of Cost Analysis Results
Material Costs
Material costs comprised ink and additive costs. Table 5.14 presents these costs. Because
no white ink was used on PE/EVA (a white substrate), ink costs for PE/EVA were the
lowest.
A significant difference among the three ink systems was the cost of ink. For example,
for the performance demonstration runs on LDPE, water-based inks cost an average of
$19.19 per 6,000 images, whereas solvent-based inks cost an average of $32.16 (68%
more than water-based inks) and UV-cured inks cost an average of $40.82 (113% more
than water-based inks). The high price per pound of UV inks contributed to their higher
cost, in spite of their lower rate of use per unit of substrate.
Differing ink consumption rates also affected costs. Several factors could have affected
consumption rates. Solvent-based ink evaporates more readily, thereby requiring the
periodic addition of press-side solvent. (An average of 4.61 pounds ($4.61) of press-side
solvent were required per 6,000 images during the performance demonstrations). Solvent-
based inks also have a lower solids content; therefore, to deliver an equivalent amount of
pigment to the substrate, a greater volume of ink is required. The surface tension of
solvent-based inks is lower, and therefore more ink is transferred from the anilox roll
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
given similar anilox roll volumes. Finally, the anilox rolls can dictate the amount of ink
consumed; rolls with more volume than necessary may lead to artificially high ink
consumption rates.
Table 5.14 Summary of Average Material Costs from the Performance Demonstrations
===
Substrate
===
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
.
Ink
=======
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Average ink costs
per
6,000
images
$40.15
$23.22
$62.79
$29.83
$12.78
$18.85
$26.51
$21.58
per
6,000 ft2
of image
'~
$18.08
$10.41
$28.24
$13.44
$5.72
$8.50
$11.92
$9.70
%of
total
—
88%
96%
100%
89%
98%
100%
84%
97%
Average additive costs
per
6,000
images
$5.61
$0.86
a
$3.78
$0.23
$0.00
$5.11
$0.58
per
6,000 ft2
of image
— —
$2.53
$0.39
a
$1.70
$0.10
$0.00
$2.31
$0.27
%of
total
=====
12%
4%
0%
1%
2%
0%
2%
3%
Total
per
6,000
images
$45.76
$24.09
$62.80
$33.61
$13.01
$18.85
$31.62
$22.16
per
6,000 ft2
of image
$20.61
$10.80
$28.24
$15.14
$5.82
$8.50
$14.23
$9.97
There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP m the performance
aUV ink manufacturers state that extra monomer is typically not added to UV ink; the printer for this demonstration run
did add monomer. The cost of this monomer is not known.
Labor Costs .
The differences in labor costs among the three ink systems were inversely proportional to
press speed (i.e., the higher the press speed, the lower the cost). Table 5.15 presents a
summary of average labor costs from the performance demonstrations. Site-specific labor
costs and press speeds can be found in Appendix 5-B. Because most of the demonstrations
were run between 340 and 450 fpm, the labor costs do not vary much among the
demonstration sites. The sites that ran at slower press speeds (Site 3 at 218 fpm and Site
8 at 262 fpm) had higher labor costs for their respective ink-substrate combinations (water-
based ink on LDPE and UV-cured on PE/EVA). Conversely, solvent-based ink on OPP
had the lowest average labor cost, because Site 10 ran at 600 fpm. These data do not
reflect qualitative issues, such as the fact that UV typically requires less press-side
adjustment and monitoring. These issues may also affect press availability.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-21
Septembc
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Substrate
LDPE
Table 5.15 Summary of Average Labor Costs from
the Performance Demonstrations
Solvent-based
per 6,000
images
:==
$13.88
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
—-
$6.25
Water-based
per 6,000
images
$20.77
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
—- -
$9.35
UV-cured
per 6,000
images
$15.89
per 6,000
ft2 of
image
$7.15
PE/EVA
$13.88
$6.25
$14.13
$6.36
$19.52
$8.78
OPP
$11.98
demonstrations.
$5.39
$13.52
successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in the performance
Capital Costs
Table 5.16 presents capital costs for each ink system. Capital cost data from the
performance demonstrations were not used, due to the variety and ages of the presses
Instead, the capital costs used in this analysis were based on estimates from suppliers and
printers, and also based on average press speeds from the performance demonstrations
A sample calculation is provided in Appendix 5-A.
The differences in capital costs were primarily due to the press speeds (i.e., the higher the
press speed, the lower the cost). As a result, the solvent-based pr.ess was the least
expensive ($29.08 per 6,000 images). The water-based and UV presses were 11 % and
33% more expensive, respectively, than the solvent-based press. At the methodology
speed, capital costs for a water-based press would be the least expensive. A UV press
would be approximately 4% more expensive and a solvent press would be approximately
8% more expensive.
While both new press and retrofit scenarios are presented in this chapter, only the new
press scenario was used in the aggregate cost analysis. However, capital costs would be
reduced if existing equipment were retrofitted. If a water-based ink press were retrofitted
from a solvent-based ink press, instead of purchasing a new press, the total cost for using
water-based inks (per 6,000 images or per 6,000 sq. feet of image) could be reduced
approximately 12%. If a UV press were retrofitted from a solvent-based or water-based
press, the total cost for using UV-cured inks could be reduced approximately 10%
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
COST
Table 5.16 Estimated Capital Costs for New Presses
Cost per 6,000 images
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based (5 sites)
Water-based (7 sites)
-UV-cured (4 sites)
$29.08
$32.15
$38.75
$13.10
$14.48
$17.45
Based on Methodoloav Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
Solvent-based (5 sites)
Water-based (7 sites)
$26.35
$25.33
$26.35
$11.87
$11.41
$11.87
Energy Costs
Table 5.17 presents energy costs for each ink system. Energy data from the performance
demonstrations were not used due to the lack of data. The energy costs used in this
analysis were based on estimates from suppliers and printers, as well as average press
speeds from the performance demonstrations. A sample calculation is provided in
Appendix 5-B, and details about energy consumption are included in Chapter 6, Resource
and Energy Conservation. Energy costs were a minor factor in overall costs, averaging
47% of the total cost across the eight ink-substrate combinations. Water-based inks were
the least expensive; energy costs were 24% and 220% higher for solvent and UV,
respectively. At the methodology speed, water-based inks again would have the lowest
energy costs. Solvent-based inks would be 52% higher, and UV-cured inks would be
190% higher than water-based inks. Energy costs for UV are particularly high both
because the curing lamps require substantial levels of energy, and because all energy is
required in the form of electricity. For water- and solvent-based inks, the dryers can be
fueled by natural gas, which is considerably less expensive on a per energy unit basis.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-23
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
Table 5.17 Estimated Energy Costs for Each Ink System
Average
natural gas costs
Average electricity costs
images I of image
Based on Observed Performance Demonstration Press Speeds
Solvent-based
$0.91 $0.4
There were no successful runs of UV-cured ink on OPP in
demonstrations.
the performance
Based on Methodology Press Speed - 500 Feet per Minute
5.3 DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS
This section discusses major categories of financial costs and benefits that are associated
with environmental regulations, pollution prevention opportunities, and environmental
practices - items that are often not projected or tracked in conventional accounting
measures. It is intended to help the reader focus on additional types of costs that could be
useful in an environmental analysis of a flexographic printing operation.
Many environmental costs are obvious, such as purchasing an oxidizer to reduce VOC
emissions to levels dictated by air regulations. There are also less obvious costs- for
example, an inefficient process that creates waste means that a company is paving for
excess raw materials.
Regulatory Costs
As indicated in Chapter 2, several regulations may impact costs for flexographic printers
Compliance may require a capital investment in equipment, such as treatment and control
systems, monitoring devices, laboratory facilities, safety equipment, or ongoing
monitoring of a system. Regulated wastes may require additional expenditures for on-site
storage, hauling, and off-site treatment and disposal. New systems may require additional
personnel and may increase energy use. Additional personnel may be needed to run the
equipment, analyze wastes, label and handle the wastes, and maintain the paperwork for
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-24
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
permitting and reporting.
discussed in Chapter 2.
Some of the relevant federal laws and requirements are
Also, various state and local regulations may increase flexographic printing costs. For
example, printing facilities using water-based inks may be required to install an oxidizer
in some states, whereas in other states they may not be required to do so. Also, wastes
from water-based inks may or may not be regulated as hazardous material, depending on
the formulation.
Non-compliance with environmental regulations may lead to additional costs. Companies
that are not in compliance may face the following direct and indirect costs.
• fines levied by regulatory agencies
• legal, costs
• property damage and remediation costs
• increased workers' health insurance and compensation
• decreased sales due to negative publicity
Insurance and Storage Requirements
Concrete insurance costs could not be quantified in the performance demonstration runs.
However, solvent-based inks, in general, require additional insurance due to their
explosive potential and additional storage requirements.
Anecdotally, in a project to reduce ink and cleaning waste for flexographic printers, one
facility reported savings in insurance premiums from switching to water-based inks and
an aqueous cleaner. The project compared the volume and toxicity of air emissions and
liquid wastes produced by the printing processes before and after switching to water-based
inks and an aqueous cleaner, and then determined the economics of such processing
changes. The facility saved about $500 per year due to lowered insurance premiums based
on improved working conditions.29
Other Environmental Costs and Benefits
Benefits from sound environmental practices can often impact areas other than production
and the environment. Sick days taken by employees may be decreased (and morale
improved) by reducing or eliminating hazardous compounds in the workplace. The
company's relationships with customers, insurers, investors, and the community can be
improved by gaining a reputation as a firm that is dedicated to environmental commitment
" ° beyond minimal regulatory compliance.
Many environmental costs and benefits are not solely environmental; utility costs may be
categorized as overhead or production costs, and greater profits may result from increased
efficiency and improved morale. More efficient use of raw materials will also lead to
greater profits. An analysis of the environmental costs may yield a more accurate
accounting of a company's expenses and reveal opportunities for cost reduction.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-25
September 200(
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
REFERENCES
1. Argent, Dave. Progressive Inks. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. June 1997. 5J
2. Bateman, Robert. Roplast Industries. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. May 27, 1997.
3. Daigle Maurice. Schuster Flexible Packaging. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. June 1997.
4. Figueria, Lou. FlexPak. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. May 23, 1997.
5. Neal, Robert. Maine Poly. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. May 26, 1997. By
6. Nigam, Brijesh. Sun Chemical Ink. Written comments to Dennis Chang, Abt Associates Inc
November 20, 1998. '
7. Root, Dave. Georgia Pacific. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. May 22, 1997. &y
8. Ross, Alexander. Radtech. Written comments to Karen Doerschug, US EPA. November 12
1998. '
9. Shapiro, Fred. P-F Technical Services, Inc. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. June 18, 1998.
10. Siciliano, Mike. Bema Film Systems. Written comments to Laura Rubin Industrial
Technology Institute. July 1997.
11. Steckbauer, Steve. Deluxe Packaging. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin Industrial
Technology Institute. May 26, 1997.
12. Timmerman, Mark. Trinity Packaging. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin Industrial
Technology Institute. May 20, 1997.
13. Zembrycki, Jerry. Strout Plastics. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. June 1997. ey
14. Ellison, Dave. American National Can Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin
Industrial Technology Institute. June 1997.
15. Serafano, John. Western Michigan University. Personal Communication with Laura Rubin
Industrial Technology Institute. March 26, 1997.
16. Rizzo, Tony. Lawson Marden Label. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin Industrial
Technology Institute. May 22, 1997.
17. Darney, Arsen J., editor. Manufacturing USA; Industry Analysis, Statistics, and Leading
Companies. 4th Edition, Volume 1. Gale Research, Inc., Detroit; pp.733., 1994.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT " 5^6 "
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
18. Yeganah, John. Bryce Corporation. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. May 23, 1997.
19. Jacobs, Eva. Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics Employment, Earnings, Prices, Productivity,
and other Labor Data: 1996 Edition., 1996
20. Steemer, Hans. Windmoeller and Hoelscher. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin,
Industrial Technology Institute. May 6, 1997.
21. Heiden, Corey. Kidder Press. Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett, Abt Associates Inc.
July 1, 1999.
22. Bemi, Dan and Steve Rach. MEGTEC Systems. Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett, Abt
Associates Inc. July 14, 2000.
23. Kottke, Lee. Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc. Telephone discussion with Trey Kellett, Abt
Associates Inc. August 2, 2000.
24. Markgraft, Dave. Enercon. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology
Institute. February 1998.
25 National Association of Printers and Lithographers. NAPL Heatset and Non-Heatset Web Press
Operations Cost Study; 1989-1990. Teaneck, NJ, 1990.
26. Bateman, Robert. Roplast Industries. Dffi Flexography Project Steering Committee Conference
call. March 1999.
27. U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Power Monthly. Energy Information Administration,
February 2000.
28. U.S. Department of Energy. Natural Gas Monthly. Energy Information Administration,
February 2000.
29. Miller, Gary, et al. "Ink Cleaner Waste Reduction Evaluation for Flexographic Printers. "
EPA/600/R-93/086, 1993.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Tamm, Rex. Daw Ink Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial Technology Institute.
June 1997.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 7987 Census of Manufacturers. Bureau of the Census, MC87-1-27B.
Windmoeller and Hoelscher. Personal communication with sales representative of Windmoeller and
Hoelscher (401-333-2770). May 1997.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-27
September 201
-------
CHAPTER 5
COST
This page is intentionally blank.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
5-28
September 2000
-------
[APTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Chapter 6: Resource and Energy Conservation
CHAPTER CONTENTS
6.1 INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION 6-3
Methodology
Limitations and Uncertainties
Ink and Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption Estimates 6-71
16.2 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Methodology
Limitations and Uncertainties ..
Energy Consumption Estimates
6-10
6-10
6-16
6-17
1 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS .......................... 6-22
Emissions from Energy Production
Environmental Impacts of Energy Production .....
Limitations and Uncertainties .
1 6 4 CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES ................................ 6-28
Press Clean-Up and Waste Reduction in the CTSA Performance Demonstrations ......... 6-29
REFERENCES
6-31
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses resource and energy use in flexographic printing and identifies opport^ities for
conservation. By minimizing resource and energy use, companies can improve the env.ronment as well as
their bottom line Data presented in this chapter are based on information collected dunng the on-s.te
perfonSe demonstration runs and information from equipment vendors. Ink and energy consumption
dataTesented in this chapter are used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) to calculate ink and energy costs.
rnkLnsumpfen data are also used to estimate environmental releases forthe risk characterization (Chapter
3)-
INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION: Section6.1 presents; the comparative
nk and press side solvent and additive consumption rates for solvent-based water-based, and UV-cured
inksvstems This analysis is based on the weights of inks, solvents, and additives, and on the substrate
usagerecorded by an o^ site observer from Western Michigan University (WMU) at each demonstration
I site.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION: Section 6.2 discusses the energy requirements of the drying systems, corona
SlutTon control equipment (catalytic oxidizers) typically used with the different ink systems.
we and/or gas consumption data were collected by WMU and supplemented by energy
*"m.nt vendors. Due to the variability among equipment and operatin procedures^
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
^
S' rather than Site-s»ecific data- « -ed in the cost
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS: Section 6.3 presents the environmental
impacts of electr-aty - generation and natural gas combustion, using software tha?quantifies eSons The
Seed r500Cftt n f f " 'n^yStem baS6d °n the fate °f energy «»»umpllon at the methodology press
speed (500 feet per minute) and the average press speeds observed at the performance demonstrations.
CLEAN-UP ANDWASTEDISPOSALPROCEDURES:Section6.4discusseStheclean-upproceduresused
" ^ aS «"" °f the br°ader life^ ^ Associated with'
HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS
•rf ^- 13d the '°WeSt 'nk consumPtion rates. In addition, UV inks required almost no
added'at pressS?' S°'Vent~based inks had the hi9hest consumption rates for ink and materials
cs consumed the least amount of energy (assuming pollution control equipment
rnncnmor h * f«, * PTeSS ***** ** 5°° feet *** ™muie' W™^ ™te were the next lowest
consumer but at the press speeds observed during the performance demonstration, solvent-based
inks were the second-lowest energy consumer per unit of image.
Forsplvent-ancI water-based inks, air recirculation in dryer units can significantly reduce energy
requirements by increasing the temperature of the incoming air.
The environmental impacts due to energy production were lowest for water-based inks This
ink system consumed the least amount of energy, and much of the energy it did use was derived from
natural gas. Based on a national average of energy emissions by source, the CTSA found that
natural gas released less emissions per unit of energy than electricity. Depending on the
geographical location of a flexographic printing facility (and thus the specific electricity source)
emissions could be very different.
Most solvent-based and some water-based ink wastes are classified as hazardous waste Non-
hazardous waste (e.g., waste substrate and some cleaning solutions) can be recycled or reused.
CAVEATS
•'nu ^T^u" W3S calculated durin9the performance demonstrations by recording the amount of
ink added to the press and subtracting the amount removed during cleanup Several site-specific
Sfci^nH th^? afff ?d ^ ca'culated ink consumption figures: type of cleaning equipment, anilox
roll size, and the level of surface tension of the substrate.
The energy consumption section only considers equipment that would differ among the ink systems
Therefore, drying/curing equipment is included, but substrate winding equipment and ink pumps are
Exceptfor corona treaters, information was not available about the difference in energy requirements
when equipment is run at different press speeds. UV lamps also will have different energy demands
rnnS ThnSrF ^f*' ** ft * assumed in this analvsis that their energy consumption is
constant. Therefore, the energy consumption of UV lamps may be overestimated at lower press
The clean-up and waste disposal procedures section presents the methods observed at the
performance demonstration sites. These procedures were developed independently by the individual
_sites, and do not represent recommended practices by EPA
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
6.1 INK AND PRESS-SIDE SOLVENT AND ADDITIVE CONSUMPTION
By reducing resource consumption, businesses can increase process efficiency, decrease
operating costs, and decrease demand for natural resources. Ink is one. of the mam
resources consumed by the flexographic printing process. The amount of ink required to
print an image not only affects printing costs, but also influences the potential risk to
workers and the environment from exposure to ink constituents. This section of the CTSA
presents average consumption of inks and press-side additions from the performance
demonstrations. The data are in units of pounds of ink consumed per 6,000 images and per
6,000 ft2 of image, as printers commonly use these terms in estimating and comparing
costs.
Methodology
The amounts of ink, press-side materials, and substrate consumed during the performance
demonstrations are shown in Appendix 6-A.
The on-site observer weighed the pre-mixed ink components (extender, water, solvent
etc ) that were put in the ink sump at the beginning of makeready and whenever ink
components were added to the sump. During clean-up, the observer weighed the ink
remaining in the sump, the ink scraped or wiped out of the press, the cleaning so ution
(water detergent, or solvent) added to the press, and the ink and cleaning solution
removed from the press. The total ink consumed during makeready and the demonstration
run for each color was calculated from the following equation.
Itotal = Ve + Dadd-mk + L W " IT
+ Cin ' Co
where
I,
I
total
pre
Ij-'-add-pr
IT
I
total amount of ink plus press-side solvents and additives consumed
(printed or evaporated) during makeready and the demonstration run
amount of pre-mixed ink put in the ink sump at the beginning of
makeready
the sum of additional ink components put in the ink sump during
makeready
the sum of the ink components added to the system during the press run
amount of ink remaining in the sump at the end of the run
amount of ink scraped or wiped out of the press at the end of the run
amount of cleaning solution added to the press during clean-up
amount of cleaning solution and ink mixture removed from the press
during clean-up
information:
was calculated for each demonstration site using the following
total amount of ink consumed during makeready and the press run (Itotal)
amount of substrate printed (S)
total area of the image (16 by 20 inches with a 16-inch repeat)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
the f meter at ±e be§inning of makeready,
the end of makeready, and at the end of the press run for each substrate The
consumption numbers are listed in Appendix 6-A.
I0" Wnit6' Water-based ink at Site 1 follow, to help readers understand
the methodology and to allow reproducibility of results. The complete data are provided
**i •**-cnQi ~
Total white ink consumed (Itotal) = 56.4 pounds (Ibs)
Total substrate consumed including makeready (S) = 62,892 linear feet (ft)
Total area of image = 2.22 square feet (ft2)
Repeat length of image = 1.33 ft
Number of images (N)
Ink per 6,000 images
— S / 1.33 feet per image
= 62,892 feet / 1.33 feet per image
= 47,200 images
= (WN) X 6,000 images
= (56.4 lbs/47,200 images) x 6,000 images
= 7.17 Ibs per 6,000 images
Ink per 6,000 ft2 of image = (Itotal/N) x 6,000 ft2 of image / Area of image
= (56.4 lbs/47,200 images) x 6,000 ft2 / 2.22 ft2 per
image
= 3.23 Ibs per 6,000 ft2 of image
White ink was not printed on the PE/EVA substrate. Thus, PE/EVA substrate is excluded
from ink consumption calculations for white ink.
Table 6.1 presents the percent area of coverage for each ink. White dominates the ink
coverage of the image (60.8 %), blue and green (line colors) account for 24.1 % coveragT
and cyan and magenta (process colors) account for 5.2% coverage. '
Table 6.1 Image Area by Color
Percent coverage (%V
the total percent coverage does not equal 100% because of overlapping colors and imprinted area
Facilities running more than one substrate did not clean the press between substrates
Thus only total weights, not the weight of ink applied to each substrate, are available'
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the weight of ink consumed per unit
area is not a function of the film type. P
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption
During the course of a print run, printers may add solvent or water to correct the viscosity
of the ink or other components, such as extenders or cross-linkers, to improve the
performance of the ink. Solvent and additive weights were calculated assuming the weight
of each component consumed is directly proportional to the component weight added to
the system. The solvent and additive consumption rates were then calculated in a manner
similar to the ink consumption rates.
The method for calculating ink weights assumes equal volatilization rates for each
component It does not account for solvent emissions from the ink sump or ink pan.
Because solvents are expected to volatilize at a more rapid rate than other components, this
method slightly underestimates solvent consumption rates and slightly overestimates rates
for the other components. Sample calculations for solvent and additive weights using
solvent-based, blue ink data from Site 5 follow, with numbers taken from Table 6-A.12
in Appendix 6-A:
Weight of blue ink added to system (Iadded) = 20.90 Ibs
Weight of solvent added to the blue ink (Sadded) = 4.81 Ibs
Total ink used (IT) = 18.16 Ibs
Total components added (T) = Iadded + Sadded
= 20.90 Ibs + 4.81 Ibs
= 25.71 Ibs
Ratio of !„„« to T(R,)
Ratio of Sadded to T (Rs)
Weight of ink consumed
•= 20.90 Ibs/25.71 Ibs
= 0.81
= 4.81 Ibs / 25.71 Ibs
= 0.19
= IT X R!
= 18.16 Ibs x 0.81
= 14.8 Ibs
Weight of solvent consumed = IT x Rs
= 18.16 Ibs x 0.19
= 3.4 Ibs
Limitations and Uncertainties
The limitations of and uncertainties in the data are related to the limited number of
demonstration sites, variability among the equipment and operating procedures at the test
sites, and uncertainties in the measured ink component weights. Each of these are
discussed below.
Limitations Due to the Number of Demonstration Sites
Ink consumption data were collected during twelve performance demonstrations^ at ten
flexographic printing facilities across the United States and one press manufacturer s pilo
in Germany. As such, the data represent a "snapshot" of how the inks performed a
tL of the performance demonstrations (November 1996 - March 1997 under actual
condUions at a limited number of facilities. Because no two printing plants are
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
identical, the sample may not be representative of all flexographic printing plants (although
there is no specific reason to believe they are not representative).
Variability among Equipment and Operating Procedures
Several operating parameters were specified in the performance demonstration
methodology (see Appendix 6-B) in an attempt to ensure consistent conditions across
demonstration sites. These included target specifications for anilox rolls (screen count and
amlox volume) which directly affect the amount of ink applied to print an image
The specified target ranges for the anilox rolls were not always met. Because of the
production needs of the volunteer facilities, changing anilox rolls or acquiring new anilox
oils to meet the specified targets was impractical. Table 6.2 lists the Srget anilox
specifications and the average configurations by ink type for the anilox rolls actually used
at Ae demonstration sites. The Site Profiles section of the Performance chapter (Chapter
4) lists the particular anilox configurations used at each of the test sites. Facilities using
anilox volumes and screen counts greater than the specifications would be expected to
consume more ink to print-the test image. Similarly, facilities using anilox volumes and
screen counts less than the specifications would be expected to consume less ink to print
the test image Also, these specifications do not address the fact that the anilox roll
volume would differ depending on the color printed; for example, the volumes for ligh
colors would be larger than those for dark colors 8
Table 6.2 Average Anilox Configurations and Target Anilox Specifications
Ink
Target
Specifications
Solvent-
based
Water-based
===
DOS
3d
Screen count (lpi)a
Line
(color)
440
350
290
480
=====
Line
(white)
^S^^I^SIE
150
260
300
250
=========
Process
====== H
600 to
700
650
580
610
1
1
Volume (BCIVI^ |
Line
(color)
4 to 6
5.5
6.3
4.9
Line
(white)
6 to 8
6.8
5.9
•
7.3
Process
— i
1.5
2.1
3.0
3.3
UV-cured
"lines per inch
bbillion cubic microns per square inch
Uncertainties in Ink Component Weights
folvtntr8! veVi°US1^ ^ °n"Site °bSerVer C°lleCted inf«ion on the amounts of ink
so vents addmves, and cleaning solution added to or removed from the system during
makeready, the press run, and clean-up. In some cases, however, site operating
sonTenft?' " ^ ^ °J^^ ***** ^ USed' Prevented measuremen7f
some of these parameters. In these cases, the weights were estimated based on other site
September 2000
-------
APTER6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Ink and Press-side Solvent and Additive Consumption Estimates
Tables 6 3 and 6.4 present the average ink and and press-side solvent and additive
consumption rates for the performance demonstration sites by ink type, substrate, and
color. Site-specific consumption rates can be found in Tables 6-A.3 and 6-A.4 in
Appendix 6-A.
In general the UV-cured ink formulations used substantially less ink than the solvent-
based or water-based formulations. On LDPE, the UV-cured ink systems used 57% less
ink than the solvent-based ink systems and 28 % less than the water-based ink systems. On
PE/EVA the UV-cured ink systems used 82 % less ink than the solvent-based ink systems
and 56%' less than the water-based ink systems. These results are consistent with the
general expectation that less UV-cured ink is needed because nearly all of the ingredients
are incorporated into the dried coating, unlike with solvent- and water-based inks.
Components added to the water-based ink formulations included water, extender, solvent,
ammonia cross-linker, slow reducer, and defoamer. Components added to the solvent-
based formulations were primarily solvents, but one company also added extender to the
ink whereas another added acetate. Water-based ink solvents and additives tended to
comprise a smaller percentage of the overall total weight than did solvent-based ink
solvents and additives. In the solvent-based systems, these additions accounted for about
25% of total consumption. No additives were used at the UV-cured ink demonstration
sites, except for a low-viscosity monomer added to the green ink at Site 11.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-7
September 2000
-------
z
o
i
UJ
CO
o
o
UJ
z
LU
Q
<
UJ
O
CO
UJ
o:
(O
a:
I
o
2
0)
1
0)
to
CO
CO
0
H
LJJ
s
o
o
o
CO
a.
-------
z
o
I
Ul
(0
o
o
1
lil
UJ
0
<
Ul
o
{£
Z3
O
(0
Ul
to
(£.
O
0)
J2
I
V
V)
CO
CD
Ul
o
o
o
13
QQ
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION!
6.2 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy conservation is an important goal for flexographic printers who strive to cut costs
and seek to improve environmental performance. This section of the CTSA discusses the
electricity and natural gas consumption rates of the flexographic printing equipment listed
in Table 6.5, including background information and assumptions. Energy consumption
rates are used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) to calculate energy costs. They are also
used in Section 6.3 to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of energy
consumption. *y
Table 6.5 Equipment Evaluated in the Energy Analysis
Hot air drying
system
Dries the ink between stations and in
the overhead tunnel (main) dryer.
;atalytic
oxidizer"
Converts VOCs to carbon dioxide and
water.
Corona treater
Increases the surface tension of the
substrate to improve ink adhesion.
Cures UV-cured ink applied to
ln some states, oxidizers may be required for water-based inks with high VOC content
Energy estimates were to be prepared from the individual site data for each of the
performance demonstration sites, similar to the site-specific ink consumption estimates
presented in Section 6.1. However, limited or no energy data were available for one or
more pieces of equipment at several of the sites, particularly for catalytic oxidizers used
at solvent-based sites. In addition, press size, age, and condition of presses varied
significantly across sites, as did equipment operating conditions, such as dryer
temperature. For these reasons, equipment vendor estimates, rather than site-specific data
are used in the cost analysis to calculate energy costs.
Methodology
This section presents the methodology used to estimate energy requirements and provides
background information and key assumptions on the types of equipment evaluated- hot air
drying systems, catalytic oxidizers, corona treaters, and UV curing systems.
Energy Consumption
Equipment vendors estimated equipment energy requirements in kilowatts (kW) for
electrical power and British thermal units (Btu) per hour for natural gas. This information
was then converted into energy consumption rates for each ink type in Btus per 6 000
images and per 6,000 ft2 of printed substrate. Table 6.6 lists the press, substrate 'and
image characteristics used in the energy estimates. These characteristics are consistent
with assumptions used in the cost analysis and with the substrates and image printed during
the on-site performance demonstrations. Where applicable, two sets of estimates were
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-10
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
made- one using the project methodology press speed of 500 feet per minute (fpm) for all
three ink types, and one using the average press speed achieved for each ink type at the
performance demonstration facilities. Additional assumptions for each type of equipment
and energy rate calculations are listed in the sections below.
Table 6.6 Press, Substrate, and Image Information for Estimating Energy Use
48-inch, 6-color, Cl press; new, average
quality
Press costs are presented in
hapter 5.
Press
speed
Solvent-based ink: 500 fpm and 453 fpm
Water-based ink: 500 fpm and 394 fpm
UV-cured ink: 500 fpm and 340 fpm
Two scenarios for each ink
system are used in the
corona treatment energy
estimates.
Substrates
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP
Web width
20 inches
A second case assuming a
40-inch web was used in
oxidizer and corona treater
energy estimates.
Sample calculations based on the average press speed at water-based sites follow.
Estimates were provided by equipment vendors.
Drying oven natural gas consumption = 500,000 Btu/hour
Blower electricity = 30 kW
Corona treater electricity = 1.6 kW
Total electricity = 31.6 kW
Average press speed (P) = 394 feet per minute
Image size = 2.22 ft2
Image repeat (R) = 1.33 feet
Images printed per minute = P/R
= 394 feet per minute / 1.33 feet per image
= 296 images/minute
= 17,800 images/hour
Time to print 6,000 images = 6,000 images / 17,800 images/hour
= 0.34 hours
Natural gas per 6,000 images = 500,000 Btu/hour X 0.34 hours
= 170,000 Btu
Electricity per 6,000 images = 31.6 kW x 0.34 hours
= llkW-hr
Images per 6,000 ft2
Time to print 6,000 ft2
= 6,000 ft2 / 2.22 ft2 per image
= 2,700 images
= 2,700 images / 17,800 images/hour
= 0.15 hours
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-11
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Natural gas per 6,000 ft2
Electricity per 6,000 ft2
= 500,000 Btu/hour x 0.15 hours
= 76,000 Btu
= 31.6kW x 0.15 hours
= 4.7 kW-hr
Hot Air Drying Systems
Most solvent-based and water-based presses are equipped with between-color (interstation)
dryers (BCDs) and an overhead (main) dryer. Supply and exhaust blowers are used to
provide air flow through the dryers and maintain negative pressure within the dryer. The
supply blowers draw air into the drying system to be heated by the burners. Most printers
draw the dryer make-up air from the ambient environment outside the plant.1 Exhaust
blowers are used to draw the heated air though the dryers to the exhaust outlet.
The BCDs are positioned after each print station. They dry each color as it is applied to
the web to prevent pick-up or tracking when the next color is applied. The overhead dryer
consists of a tunnel located above the print stations, through which the web passes to
further dry the ink before the web is rewound.
The energy consumed by hot air drying systems includes electrical power for the supply
and exhaust blowers and natural gas for the drying oven. Typically, the gas energy
required to heat the process air is greater than the energy needed to dry the ink.2
Kidder, Inc., a press manufacturer, provided energy estimates for hot air drying systems
based on the press, substrate, and image details listed in Table 6.6, the average ink
consumption rates listed in Table 6.3, and the hot air drying system assumptions listed in
Table 6.7. Dryer energy estimates for both solvent- and water-based inks are based on the
same air flow rates but different dryer temperatures. New presses are now designed to
work with either water-based or solvent-based inks. Usually, a press operator will reduce
the amount of heat instead of the air flow when using solvent-based inks.3 Air flow rates
are given in units of cubic feet per minute (cfm).
Table 6.7 Hot Air Drying System Assumptions
BCD air flow rate
Main dryer air flow rate
Dryer temperature
(solvent-based Inks)
Dryer temperature
(water-based inks)
Make-up (outdoor) air
temperature
Percent recirculation
of dryer air
Assumption
2800 cfm
3000 cfm
150°F
200°F
0°F, 50°F,
70°F
0%, 50%
Four dryer boxes at 700 cfm/box, based on
average BCD flow rate of 15 cfm/inch of
width/dryer boxa
Typical value for 48-inch press3
Typical temperature for Project substrates3
Typical temperature for Project substrates3
Three scenarios
Two scenarios
* Reference 4.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
The assumed dryer temperature for water-based inks is higher than the maximum
temperature to which some film substrates can be subjected without potentially damaging
the film. However, in practice, the film temperature would be less than the dryer
temperature due to impression cylinder cooling and evaporative cooling.5
The hot air drying system energy estimates were prepared for six different operating
scenarios, assuming three different outside air temperatures for the make-up air and two
dryer air recirculation scenarios (no recirculation and 50% recirculation). All six
scenarios were analyzed to illustrate the influence make-up air temperature and air
recirculation on dryer costs. The different air temperatures represent the range of air
temperatures that might be encountered in different seasons. If make-up air is taken from
tte outdoor environment (as is typically done), dryer costs will be significantly higher in
winter than in summer. The 50°F temperature was used in the cost analysis to represent
an annual average. Most new presses are designed to recirculate dryer air, either to save
on dryer air heating costs or to reduce the air flow to the pollution control device.
However, many older presses do not have dryer air recirculation, and retrofitting may be
ineffective with smaller, low air flow presses. A recirculation rate of 50 % was used in the
cost analysis since this is more representative of a new press, the subject of the cost
analysis.
Catalytic Oxidizers
A catalytic oxidizer is a type of add-on emissions control equipment used to convert VOC
emissions to carbon dioxide and water by high temperature oxidation. Catalytic
incinerators employ a catalyst bed to facilitate the overall combustion reaction by
increasing the reaction rate. This enables conversion at lower reaction temperatures than
in thermal oxidizers. Oxidizers are used primarily with solvent-based inks, but may be
required with water-based inks in some states.
A basic catalytic oxidizer assembly consists of a heat exchanger, a burner, and a catalyst.
First, the dryer exhaust stream is preheated by heat exchange with the oxidizer effluent
and, where necessary; further heated to the desired catalyst inlet temperature by a natural
gas-fired burner. The heated stream then passes through the catalyst where VOCs are
converted to carbon dioxide and water. The. combustion reaction between oxygen and
gaseous pollutants in the waste stream occurs at the catalyst surface. The oxidizer effluent
is then recirculated back to the heat exchanger and may also be recirculated to the dryer
to save drying fuel.
Two oxidizer suppliers, Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc. and MEGTEC Systems
[formerly Wolverine (Massachusetts) Corporation], provided energy estimates based on
the press, substrate, and image details listed in Table 6.6 and the additional oxidizer
assumptions presented in Table 6.8.7 As with the other equipment, the oxidizer energy
estimates represent energy requirements for a particular set of circumstances (e.g., solvent
loading, dryer exhaust temperature, flow rate), and they are not necessarily representative
of other operating conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-13
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.8 Catalytic Oxidizer Assumptions
Parameter
Number of
presses vented
to oxidizer
Solvent content
Heat exchanger
efficiency
Air flow to
oxidizer
Dryer exhaust
temperature
Catalyst inlet
temperature
Solvent loading
two cases)
Assumption
Two
1 3,000 Btu/lb
70%
5800 cfm
150°F
600°F
70 Ib/hr
140 Ib/hr
^ — -— — — — — — -----
Comments ||
Average of typical values provided by two oxidizer
suppliers
Typical efficiency value based on vendor input.
Equipment vendors also provided oxidizer energy
estimates for 65%, 75%, and 80% efficiencies
Combined air flow after recirculation for two 48-inch
presses; same as air flow used in dryer energy
estimates
Dryer temperature assumed for drying oven energy
calculations
Depending on solvent type, catalyst inlet
temperatures can vary from 475°F to 650°F8A1ai1'a
Solvent loading for two presses; solvent loading at
Derformance demonstration sites averaged 35 Ib/hr
or one press.
Solvent loading assuming each 48-inch press is
running two 20-inch images, side by side (i.e., solvent
oading for a 40-inch web width)
The catalytic oxidizer energy estimates were prepared assuming two different solvent
loadings (70 and 140 Ib/hr). The solvent loadings were based on two web widths (20-inch
and 40-inch). A solvent loading of 70 Ib/hr was used in the cost analysis.
Two scenarios for solvent loading are provided because it would be very unusual for a
facility with a 48-inch press to run a 20-inch image, which reduces solvent loading to the
oxidizer. Oxidizer energy costs decrease with increased solvent loading until the oxidation
reaction becomes self-sustaining (e.g., requires no make-up fuel). Using a 20-inch image
on a 48-inch press and the associated lower solvent loading would tend to overestimate
energy costs. Solvent loading of 140 Ib/hr portrays a more realistic situation, in which two
20-inch images are run side by side on a 48-inch press.
A heat exchanger efficiency of 70%, a typical efficiency, was used in the cost analysis
The other values (65%, 75%, and 80%) were submitted by oxidizer vendors to illustrate
the effect of heat exchanger efficiency on oxidizer energy costs.
Technology developments are allowing for decreased catalyst inlet temperatures. A published estimate
notes that a typical catalyst inlet temperature is 550-700°F. Another industry estimate notes that with
solvent loading, the typical temperature can rise to 650°F. However, some new oxidizers are capable of
operating at 500 °F.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Corona Treaters
Corona treatment is a process that increases the surface energy of a substrate to improve
ink adhesion. It can be performed three ways: by the substrate supplier, when the
substrate is on the printing press, or both by the substrate supplier and on press. On-press
corona treatment systems may be used with all three ink types, but are mainly used with
water-based and UV-cured inks, which typically have lower surface energy than solvent
inks. None of the performance demonstration sites running solvent-based inks used corona
treatment on the press.
A corona treatment assembly consists of a power supply and treater station. The power
supply accepts standard utility electrical power and converts it into a single-phase, higher-
frequency power that is supplied to the treater station. The treater station applies the
higher frequency power to the surface of the material via a pair of electrodes.12
The energy consumed by a corona treatment system can depend on a number of factors,
including web width, production speed, type of substrate (e.g., material, slip additives),
and watt density (watts per unit area per unit time) required to treat the substrate. Table
6.6 presents press, substrate, and image details. Enercon Industries Corporation, a corona
treater supplier, provided corona treatment energy estimates, including the power supply
size and input power. Input power represents the actual power drawn from the utility grid.
Watt density was not specified, so the equipment suppliers determined the appropriate watt
density.
UV Curing Systems
UV presses employ UV lamps, which emit UV radiation to polymerize or cross-link the
UV-cured ink monomers. In addition to the lamps, a UV curing system has supplemental
cooling capacity to counter the infrared heat produced by the UV lamps. The curing
system may also include a blower to extract ozone generated during the UV curing
process, and an anilox heater to pre-heat the ink. Only one of the three UV performance
demonstration sites had a separate ozone blower and anilox heater.
Energy estimates for UV curing systems were developed based on operating data collected
during the performance demonstrations; supplemental information from Windmoller &
Holscher, an equipment supplier; and information from another equipment supplier,
Fischer & Krecke, Inc. Table 6.9 presents the UV curing system assumptions. Lamp
output is assumed to be constant at both press speeds evaluated (i.e., at 500 fpm and 340
fpm). However, hi most UV systems lamp power increases with press speed up to some
maximum power output level, depending on the press. For example, lamp output
provided by one press manufacturer ranged from 48 watts per centimeter of press width
(W/cm) at a press speed of 100 fpm to 160 W/cm at 820 fpm.13 In another example,
manufacturer data for lamp output at a performance demonstration site ranged from 80
w/cm at standby to 200 w/cm at 200 fpm. No data were available to accurately account
for the differences in lamp output at.the two project press speeds. Lamp energy in watts
was calculated by multiplying the lamp output in watts per inch by the press width (48
inches) and by the total number of lamps (six).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.9 UV Curing System Assumptions
Parameter
Lamp output
Number of
lamps
Lamp cooling
Assumption
175 watts per cm of
press width
Six
60 kW
Comments
Average value based on site and vendor data
Four lamps between colors and two main
lamps
Average value based on site data and vendor
data
Limitations and Uncertainties
The limitations of and uncertainties in the energy analysis stem from the lack of energy
data at many of the demonstration sites, the limitations in the number of operating
scenarios evaluated, limitations in the data for different press speeds, and uncertainties
inherent in using estimated data rather than measured data. Each of these limitations is
discussed below.
Lack of Energy Data at Performance Demonstration Sites
The performance demonstration methodology called for energy data collection at the 11
performance demonstration sites in order to develop a "snapshot" of energy requirements
under actual operating conditions at a limited number of facilities. As discussed
previously, little or no energy data were available for one or more pieces of equipment at
several of the sites, particularly for catalytic oxidizers used at solvent-based sites. In
addition, press size, age, and condition varied significantly across sites, as did equipment
operating conditions, such as dryer temperature. For these reasons, equipment vendor
estimates, rather than site-specific data, are the focus of the energy analysis. As a result,
the data are estimated based on hypothetical operating conditions and do not necessarily
represent energy demand experienced at the performance demonstration sites.
Limitations in the Number of Operating Scenarios
The operating conditions and assumptions used in the energy analysis were developed
based on the test image, substrates, and operating conditions at the performance
demonstration sites, as well as using typical operating conditions provided by equipment
vendors. As such, the energy estimates represent a "snapshot" of equipment energy
Limitations in the Data for Different Press Speeds
The energy consumed by printing equipment is often a direct or indirect function of press
speed. For example, the power outputs of UV lamps and corona treaters usually vary
directly with the press speed. The amount of make-up fuel required for a catalytic oxidizer
depends on the solvent loading, which varies with the ink, image, and press speed, among
other factors. However, except for corona treaters, no quantitative data were available to
determine the differences in equipment energy draw at the different project press speeds
(e.g., the average press speeds observed at performance demonstration sites and the
methodology press speed of 500 fpm). This can result in either an overestimation of energy
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
requirements at the lower press speeds or an underestimation of energy requirements at
the higher press speeds.
Uncertainties in Estimated Data
Equipment energy requirements were estimated by equipment vendors for use in the cost
analysis. Attempts were made to get estimates from at least two vendors for each type of
equipment, but in some cases only one estimate was available. Vendor energy estimates
were compared to each other, to performance demonstration data, and to other data
sources as available, to check for reasonableness and completeness. Either averages or
the most complete and representative data are presented in the results below and used in
the cost analysis.
Energy Consumption Estimates
Table 6.10 presents the equipment vendor energy estimates used to develop energy
consumption rates. Table 6.11 presents gas and electrical energy consumption rates in
Btus. Results from the latter table were used in the cost analysis (Chapter 5). The energy
consumption results for each type of equipment across the three ink systems are discussed
in more detail in the following sections. For the estimated energy costs for each ink system
and substrate combination, see Table 5.17 in the Cost chapter.
Under the particular operating parameters and assumptions used in this analysis, the water-
based system consumed the least energy at both press speeds. UV energy consumption
rates were most influenced by the press speed, due to the lower average press speed
achieved at UV performance demonstration sites. However, as noted previously, no data
were available to account for the lower lamp energy draw that can occur at lower press
speeds. Solvent-based systems have lower drying energy requirements than water-based,
but have higher overall energy requirements when the oxidizer energy requirements are
taken into account. These results would be reversed (e.g., water-based inks would require
more energy than solvent-based-inks) if the solvent-loading to the oxidizer was sufficient
to make the oxidizer self-sustaining and/or recirculation of dryer air was not taken into
account for water-based systems.
The results of the energy analysis in Table 6.11 can be compared to a similar analysis of
energy consumption undertaken by a press manufacturer that supplies both hot air and UV
cured systems.14 That study evaluated the relative energy consumption of a 55-inch press
running the different ink systems. Table 6.12 shows the results of that analysis, which
suggest that solvent-based and water-based systems have roughly the same energy
requirements if pollution control equipment is required for both ink types, while UV-cured
inks have slightly greater energy requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.10 Equipment Vendor Energy Estimates Used to
Develop Consumption Rates
Ink
Solvent-
based
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Equipment
Drying
oven
Dryer
blowers
Oxidizer
Oxidizer
blower
Drying
oven
Dryer
blowers
Corona
treater
UV lamps
Lamp
cooling
Corona
treater
Natural gas
(Btu/hr)
360,000
n/a
290,000
n/a
500,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Electricity
(kW)
n/aa
30
n/a
25
n/a
30
2.1, 1.6
130
60
2.1, 1.6
Comments
Based on an outdoor air
temperature of SOT and 50%
recirculation of dryer air
Average of values
recommended in dryer energy
audits from some performance
demonstration sites and by
equipment vendor
Average of values from two
equipment vendors; based on
70 Ib/hr solvent loading
Average of values from two
equipment vendors
Based on an outdoor air
temperature of 50°F and 50%
recirculation of dryer air
Average of values
recommended by two
performance demonstration
sites and by equipment vendor
Based on worst case substrate
(PE/EVA) running at 500 and
394 fpm, respectively
See Table 6.9 for basis
See Table 6.9 for basis
Based on worst case substrate
(PE/EVA) running at 500 and
394 fpm respectively
n/a. not appucaoie
Table 6.11 Average Energy Consumption Rates for Each Ink System
Ink
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Press speed
(fpm)
500
453b
500
394b
500
340b
Energy per 6,000
images (Btu)a
220,000
240,000
160,000
220,000
174,000
260,000
Energy per 6,000 ft2 of
imacjG (Btu)a
100,000
110,000
73,000
96,000
78,000
120 000
electrical energy was converted to Btus using the factor of 3,413 Btu per kW-hr.
Average press speed for the performance demonstration sites.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-18
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.12 Energy Consumption per Job by Ink Type3
Equipment
Dryer"
Pollution control"
Corona treatment
UV lamps
Temperature conditioning
Total
Energy consumption by ink type (Btu/hr)
Solvent-based
=310,000
=200,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
=200,000
=710,000
Water-based
=310,000
(200,000)d
17,000
n/a
n/a
=200,000
530,000-730,000
UV-cured
n/ac
n/a
= 17,000
=550,000
=85,000
=200,000
=850,000
bHeater plus blower
°n/a: not applicable
dPollution control may or may not be required with water-based inks.
Hot Air Drying Systems
As discussed previously, six scenarios were evaluated for the natural gas requirements of
a hot air drying system, based on three different ambient air temperatures and the presence
or absence of dryer air recirculation. Table 6.13 presents the results of these analyses.
The energy requirements for hot air drying systems were calculated using a proprietary
formula that considers make-up air temperature, dryer temperature, and air flow.16 As
shown in the table, recirculation can greatly reduce energy load. There are many factors
involved, but in this scenario dryer energy with recirculation can be calculated assuming
a relationship of 40% fuel savings for 60% recirculation.17 Whenever recirculating air is
used with solvent-based inks, however, it is imperative that the lower explosive limit
(LEL) be monitored and controlled to safe limits.18
Table 6.13 Natural Gas Energy Estimates for Hot Air Drying Systems
Ambient air
temperature (°F)
0
0
50
50
70
Percent air
recirculation (%)
0
50
0
50
0
50
Natural gas energy (Btu/hr)
Solvent-based
720,000
480,000
530,000
360,000 -
440,000
290.000
Water-based
890,000
600,000
740,000
500,000
670,000
450,000
Source: Reference 19.
Dryer gas energy data collected during the performance demonstrations were largely
incomplete. Data that were collected varied widely due to differences in press sizes and
operating conditions. For example, gas energy data were only available from four of eight
sites (one of which ran both solvent- and water-based ink systems) and ranged from gas
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-19
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
burner capacity data to energy estimates from dryer energy audits. The average gas
consumption rates reported by solvent-based and water-based sites were 2.4 million
Btus/hr and 1.5 million Btus/hr, respectively. These values are significantly higher than
the values estimated in Tables 6.10 and 6.13. Differences may be attributed in part to the
larger press sizes at these sites (average 54 inches), press age, dryer temperatures and flow
rates, and the amount of dryer air recirculation.
Catalytic Oxidizers
Oxidizer vendors were asked to estimate oxidizer energy requirements for two scenarios
using the assumptions in Table 6.8: The first scenario is two 48-inch presses running the
performance demonstration image vented to the same oxidizer (70 Ib/hr solvent loading).
The second scenario is two presses fully loaded with two performance demonstration
images (140 Ib/hr solvent loading). The first scenario is consistent with assumptions used
in the cost analysis (Chapter 5) and was used to generate the energy consumption rates in
Tables 6.10 and 6.11. The second scenario illustrates the effect of solvent loading on
energy requirements. In general, as solvent loading increases, natural gas energy
decreases until the solvent loading is sufficient to make the reaction self-sustaining.
In addition to the two scenarios described above, the oxidizer vendors prepared energy
estimates based on heat exchanger efficiencies of 65 %, 70 %, 75 %, and 80 %. Table 6.14
presents the catalytic oxidizer energy estimates for the various solvent loadings and heat
exchanger efficiencies and the specific assumptions in Table 6.8. Other operating
parameters that can significantly affect the overall energy requirements of an oxidizer
include the solvent heat content, the air flow to the oxidizer, and the inlet air temperature.
Table 6.14 Catalytic Oxidizer Energy Estimates3
Solvent
loading
70 Ib/hr
140 Ib/hr
Equipment
Burner (Btu/hr)
Damper/blower
(kW)d
Burner (Btu/hr)
Damper/blower
(kW)d
Energy estimates by heat exchanger efficiency
65%b
560,000
17"
16,000
17"
70%b
260,000
17"
16,000
17e
70%c
320,000 •
32f
70,000
32f
130,000
32f
.n/a9
n/a
70,000
32f
n/a
n/a
— --*** -- —— - ~ .^wuiiii^uv^iio in Table 6.8 plus additional assumptions made by
equipment vendors. Values do not necessarily represent the relative energy efficiency of the vendor's
equipment.
bSource: Reference 20.
"Source: Reference 21.
dOnekW-hr=3,413Btu ;
"Based on 22 hp blower
'Based on 40 hp motor with volume blower
fln/a: not applicable, unit is at minimum Btu/hr usage with another heat exchanger.
Corona Treaters
Corona treatment energy requirements were estimated for two press speeds (500 fpm and
the performance demonstration site averages) and two web widths (20 inch and 40 inch).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
One corona treater supplier provided power supply and input power estimates for the worst
case substrate (2.5 mil PE/EVA, high slip) only, while the other provided watt density and
power supply data for all of the substrates, but did not provide input power estimates.
Because the remainder of the energy analysis is based on input power rather than power
supply, estimates provided by the first supplier were used to generate the results in Tables
6.10 and 6.11. Table 6.15 lists corona treater energy estimates for a 500 fpm press speed.
Table 6.16 lists corona treater energy estimates for the average press speed at the
performance demonstration sites.
Table 6.15 Corona Treater Energy Estimates (Press Speed of 500 Feet per Minute)
Ink
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE (no slip)
PE/EVA
Watt density
(watts/m2/min)
20"
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,100
2,300
3,100
40"
weba
6,200
6,200
6,200
6,200
4,600
6,200
6,200
Power supply
(kW)
20"
weba
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
40"
weba
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
5.0
7.5
7.5
20"
webb
NDC
2.0
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
40"
web"
ND
3.5
ND
ND
ND
3.5
ND
Input power
(kW)
20"
web"
ND
2.1
ND
ND
ND
2.1
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
aSource: Reference 22.
"Source: Reference 23.
°ND = no data
Table 6.16 Corona Treater Energy Estimates (Average Press Speeds at the
Performance Demonstration Sites)
Ink
Water-
based
UV-
cured
Substrate
LDPE
PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE (no slip)
PE/EVA
Watt density
(watts/mz/min)
20"
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,100
1,600
2,100
40"
4,700
4,700
4,700
4,200
3,100
4,200
4,200
Power supply
(kW)
20"
weba
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
40"
weba
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
20"
webb
ND°
1.5
ND
ND
ND
1.5
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.0
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
Input power
(kW)
20"
webb
ND
1.6
ND
ND
ND
1.6
ND
40"
webb
ND
3.1
ND
ND
ND
2.6
ND
aSource: Reference 24.
"Source: Reference 25.
CND = no data
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-21
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.17 presents power output data (e.g., power applied to the web) read by WMU
representatives from the corona treater power supply box during the performance
demonstration runs. In some cases, WMU representatives also measured power input in
volts and amps during the print run. However, these data are not reported because corona
treater suppliers have indicated they cannot be used to calculate power input in kilowatts
without knowing site-specific power efficiency factors.26
Table 6.17 Corona Treater Power Output at Performance Demonstration Sites
Ink
Water-based
UV-cured
'•" ' —
Substrate
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
OPP
OPP, LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP, LDPE, PE/EVA
LDPE (no slip)
Site
1
2
3
4
9A
6
8
11
Power output (kW)
6.4
1.9
4.0
3.0
ND
11.0
2.2
n/ab
===^ — i
NDa
ND
4.0
3.0
ND
ND
ND
n/a
INU. MU uaia
n/a: not applicable; Site 11 did not have a corona treater.
UV Curing Systems
Lamp energy estimates for either press speed were obtained at 160 watts/cm of press
width, 174 watts/cm, and 185 watts/cm. Larger differences were seen in the supplemental
lamp cooling estimates, which ranged from 25 kW to 90 kW. The smaller value is for a
water-cooled system; reportedly, most UV lamp systems are air-cooled.27
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The energy requirements of the solvent-based, water-based and UV ink systems presented
in Section 6.3 result in energy costs to printers (see Chapter 5, Cost). Environmental
releases from energy production also result hi indirect costs to society. Examples of the
types of pollutants released during energy production include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur
oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and particulate matter. The
potential environmental and human health impacts of these releases include health effects
to humans and wildlife, global warming, acid rain, and photochemical smog. For more
information on the potential impacts of printing on society, see Chapter 8 Choosing
Among Ink Technologies.
This section quantifies the types and amounts of pollutants released into the environment
from energy production and discusses the potential environmental impacts of the pollutant
releases. For electrical energy, pollutants are typically released at electrical power plants
outside the printing facility. Releases from natural gas combustion may occur at the print
shop where the combustion process occurs.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Emissions from Energy Production
The emissions from energy production during the performance demonstrations were
evaluated using a computer program developed by the EPA National Risk Management
Research Laboratory.28 This program, which is called P2P-version 1.50214, can estimate
the type and quantity of pollutant releases resulting from the production of energy, as long
as the differences in energy consumption and the source of the energy used (e.g., hydro-
electric, coal, natural gas, etc.) are known. The program compares the pollution
generated by different processes (e.g., extraction and processing of coal or natural gas for
fuel).
Electrical power derived from the average national power grid was selected as the source
of electrical energy, while natural gas was used as the source of thermal energy for this
evaluation. Energy consumption rates per 6,000 ft2 from Table 6.11 were used as the
basis for the analysis.
Results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.18. Appendix 6-C contains printouts from
the P2P program. Water-based systems generally had the lowest levels of pollutants from
energy production at either press speed, followed by solvent-based systems. The
pollutants associated with the production of energy for the UV ink system exceeded those
from water-based or solvent-based systems ,for every pollutant category except
hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon emissions were greater for the water-based and solvent-based
systems, because of the natural gas consumed by the hot-air dryers used with these
systems. Greater emissions from energy production were seen at lower press speeds for
all of the systems, due to the longer run times needed to print a given quantity of substrate.
However, as noted in Section 6.2, no data were available to estimate the differences in
energy draw at different press speeds. Emissions from energy production would be
reduced if equipment powers down at decreased press speeds.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-23
September 2000
-------
z
o
UJ
to
o
o
o
I
UJ
Q
Z
<
HI
o
O
CO
01
JO
•5 "s <-M
•H o col
CO
I
•a
2
Q.
I
0)
D)
c
'C
3
•a
13
a>
DC
(0
I
o
a.
eo
T-J
CD
l_ CO
3 O '
— "o Oil
CO
co
o
CM
o
o
o.
to"
D)
I
S.
q
od
o
CO
CD
in
CN
CD
CN
S O
CD
CM
(A
O
JQ
>,
00
od
co
co
CM
o
o o
o o
O O5
CN" CM"
in
m
•a
ll
« o
.2 w
a
co
o
CO
CO O
t- CM
CM
m
co
C
CO "O
(00
fl>
m
cq
oi
o
CM
O
o
O
&
I
a>
V)
q
co'
o
o
o
o"
£ w
>»
CO
•g CO
O CD
CO J3
O
O
co
o
o
in
o
o
o
co"
co
CM
If
o
o
m
CO
Q
I-
111
O
o
o
Ij
m
a.
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
The higher overall emissions for UV systems were due primarily to the differences in fuel
mixes used by the three systems (both electrical and natural gas energy for water-based
and solvent-based systems, as compared to electrical energy alone for UV). The U.S.
electric grid is mainly comprised of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, gas and petroleum-fired
power plants. In 1997 the majority of U.S. electrical energy (57%) was produced from
coal-fired generators,29 which tend to emit greater quantities of pollutants than gas-fired
energy systems. For example, at a 500 fpm press speed, the UV system consumed an
estimated 23 kW-hr /6,000ft2 of electricity, which is equivalent to 78,000 Btu/6,000ft2.
At the same press speed, the solvent-based system consumed an estimated 6.6 kW-
hr/6,000ft2 of electricity plus 78,000 Btu/e.OOOft2 of natural gas, for a total of 100,000
Btu/e^OOft2 . However, although the UV system consumed less overall energy than the
solvent-based system, it still had higher emissions from energy production for the
pollutants evaluated, except hydrocarbons.
Environmental Impacts of Energy Production
Table 6.19 lists the pollution categories, pollutant classes, and media of release assigned
by the P2P software. Table 6.20 lists total pollution generated by pollutant category and
class, and Table 6.21 provides totals for each pollution category.
Based on the pollutant loadings shown in Tables 6.21 and 6.22, the water-based systems
showed the lowest potential environmental impacts from energy production, including
human health, use impairment, or disposal capacity impacts, followed by solvent-based
systems. The UV systems had the greatest potential environmental impacts from energy
production in each of the pollution categories and classes.
Limitations and Uncertainties
These pollutant loadings can only be used as indicators of relative potential impacts, not
as an assessment.of risk. Assessing risk from energy production also would require
knowledge of the location and concentration of release, and proximity to surrounding
populations. It would also require more information on the specific chemicals emitted,
for example the exact identity of the hydrocarbons emitted during natural gas combustion'
as compared to the hydrocarbons emitted during coal combustion.
The potential environmental impacts of energy requirements for the three ink systems are
based on the energy estimates described in Section 6.2 and are subject to the same
limitations and uncertainties.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-25
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.19 Pollution Categories, Classes and Media of Release
Pollution Category _,
Human Health Impacts
Use Impairment Impacts
Disposal Capacity Impacts
Pollutant Class
Toxic Inorganics3
Toxic Organics3
Acid Rain
Precursors
Corrosives
Dissolved Solids"
Global Warmers
Odorants
Particulates0
Smog formers
Solid Wastes
Pollutants
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides
Sulfuric acid
Dissolved solids,
sulfuric acid
Carbon dioxide,
nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Particulates
Carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons,
nitrogen oxides
Solid Wastes
Affected
Air
Air
Air
Air
Water
Water
Air
Air
Air
Air
Soil,
b Toxic organic and inorganic pollutants can cause adverse health effects in humans and wildlife
Paniculate releases can promote respiratory illness in humans.
The program uses data reflecting the national average pollution releases per kilowatt-hour
derived from particular sources. It does not account for differences in emission rates at
different power plants, nor does it necessarily account for the latest in pollution cpntrol
technologies applied to power plant emissions.
The P2P program primarily accounts for emissions of pollutant categories and not emissions
of the individual chemicals or materials known to occur from energy production, such as
mercury. Nor does it provide information on the spatial or temporal characteristics of
releases. Thus, the P2P software provides emissions estimates in grams per functional unit
(grams per 6,000ft2 of printed surface, in this case) and assigns them to pollution (impact)
categories and classes rto develop pollutant loadings by impact category. As discussed
previously, these pollutant loadings can be used as an indicator of relative potential
environmental impacts, but are not an assessment of risk.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-26
September 2000
-------
z
g
I
m
OT
O
O
1
m
UJ
a
w
(0
<8
O
ra
o
ra
ra
o
a.
•o
Q>
2
0)
0)
O
c
o
^C!
"o
Q.
CM
ra
•o *""
s
i
0)
o
c
0
*3
5
"o
Q.
-1
oJ
^ **^l
3 O
it
co_
|
3o
o
12.
,
. "§"
&• km
J2.
^
O QJ
CQ TTI
5§
2.
c c
o £•
"5 J2
CO •$
*j C
C *-
o g
CO S
illutant Class
O
Q.
|l
"o 13
Q-O
o
CO
.
o
CM
CO
CO
p:
o
Toxic Inorganics
CO 1
CO
CO
CM
CO
CD
in
10
CO
0)
CO
Toxic Organics
CO
0)
X
CD "t>
II
o
CO
o
CM
CO
in
CO
fc
o
Rain Precursors
•o
't
•^
0
co
CO
o
CM
CM
S
in
CO
CO
Corrosives
CM
CM
m
T-
m
CO
CO
CM
CM
iri
N;
Dissolved Solids
o
o
0
-fr
CM
o
o
o
co"
s
o
CO"
0
o
co"
o
0
o
o"
^~
o
of
Global Warmers
o>
CM
0
CM
CM
5
O
CO
in
in
Odorants
o
CM
O)
co
co
co
o
CO
Particulates
g
o
s
CO
CO
O)
CO
o
CO
e
0)
&
O5
CO
•I-*
c.
CD
» 2.
3 E ..-'.: :
0
o
CO
CM" '
0
o
o
CM"
o
o
CO
0
CO
CD
o
in
Solid Wastes
'o
a
CO
O
"CD en
0*
&|
oi
t
en
ed to two significant
•o
3
S
1
1
e
E
E
•3
»
0)
A
I
0>
(0
CD
UJ
S
O
U
o
m
a.
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.21 Summary of Pollution Generated by Category
Pollution
Category
Human Health
Impacts
Use Impairment
Impacts
Disposal
Capacity
Impacts
GvenajJ
.IHylropment
Solvent
(500 fpm)
79
9,500
570
10,000
Pollution Generated •
(g/per 6,000ft2)
Solvent
(453 fpm)
87
10,000
630
11,000
Water
(500 fpm)
48
6,500
340
6,800
Water
(394 fpm)
60
8,100
410
a.S.00
uv
230
16,000
2,000
18,000
UV
350
24,000
2,900
27,000
6.4 CLEAN-UP AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
This section of Chapter 6 discusses the types of cleaning solutions and clean-up methods
used for the three different flexographic ink technologies studied in the CTS A performance
demonstrations, and describes the disposal procedures for the various types of wastes
generated in each case.
All flexographic printing operations result in waste ink and substrate, soiled shop towels,
and cleaning solutions that need to be disposed. However, the volume of waste ink and
the specific chemical makeup of wastes differ, depending on the type of ink system that
a printer uses. Therefore, the clean-up methods, waste disposal procedures, and overall
environmental impacts of a printing process also differ for each ink system.
Most printers employ the same basic procedures to clean solvent-based or water-based ink
from a press. Excess ink may be wiped or scraped down and drained from the press. The
system is then flushed with a cleaning solution to remove additional ink and prepare the
press for a fresh run. Shop towels, usually wetted with a cleaner, are used to wipe down
the anilox rolls, doctor blades, or other press parts. UV ink cleaning procedures are
similar, except that different cleaners or dry shop towels may be used to wipe down the
press.
Most solvent-based ink wastes are classified as hazardous waste and are disposed of
accordingly. Water-based ink wastes, however, may or may not be classified as hazardous
waste, depending on the solvent content. Though solvent-based waste disposal costs may
be reduced because it can be burned and used for heat production, this is not possible with
water-based wastes. Therefore, some printers using low-solvent water-based inks use an
"ink splitter" to separate the solids from fluids in their waste ink and cleaning solutions.
This substantially reduces the amount of hazardous waste that needs to be disposed. The
waste water usually can be reused in-house or discharged to the public water system, but
if the original waste qualified as hazardous, the solids also will need to be treated as
hazardous waste. (See the Control Options section of Chapter 7 for more information on
ink splitters.)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-28
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Multi-day runs of UV-cured printing may generate less ink waste than solvent-based or
water-based printing for printers who shut down overnight, such as some smaller printers.
In this case, the ink can remain indefinitely on the press or in the reservoirs without curing
on press parts or the sump.3b The press is shut down, the ink reservoirs should be covered
to prevent dust from getting in, and the press is turned on to resume printing the next day.
Also, because correct color adjustment is achieved more quickly at the beginning of a UV
run using process colors on dedicated stations, under these conditions UV may generate
somewhat less waste of ink and substrate. However, because UV inks are too thick to be
modified easily, correct color adjustment may not be achieved more quickly when using
matched/Pantone colors that require toning.31
Press Clean-Up and Waste Reduction in the CTSA Performance Demonstrations
Table 6.22 summarizes the types of cleaning solutions used at the performance
demonstration sites. For solvent-based systems, three sites utilized a blend of alcohol and
acetate solutions, and one site reported using alcohol alone. The cleaning solutions used
for UV-systems were the same as those for solvent-based systems, except for one site that
used an alcohol/water/soap blend. Water, at times mixed with a little alcohol and/or
ammonia, was used for clean-up of the water-based ink systems.
Table 6.22 Cleaning Solutions Used at Performance Demonstration Sites
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Cleaning Solution
Alcohol/acetate blend ( 3 sites)
Alcohol (1 site)
Water only (2 sites)
Water/alcohol blend (1 site)
Water/ammonia blend (1 site)
Water/ammonia/alcohol blend (1 site)
Alcohol (1 site)
Alcohol/acetate blend (1 site)
Alcohol/water/soap blend (1 site)
The clean-up and waste disposal procedures employed at the performance demonstration
sites are summarized in Table 6.23. Appendix 6-B describes these procedures in more
detail. All but one site employed reusable shop towels to clean the press. All sites
recycled some or all of their waste substrate.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-29
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
Table 6.23 Clean-up and Waste Disposal Procedures at Performance
Demonstration Sites
Ink System
Solvent-based
Water-based
UV-cured
Shop Towels
Sent to industrial
laundry (3 sites)
Landfilled ( 1 site)
Sent to industrial
laundry (5 sites)
Sent to industrial
laundry (2 sites)
No data (1 site)
-==========
Ink and Cleaning Solution
Disposition
Solvent mix to cement kiln (1 site)
On-site distillation; still bottoms to
cement kiln (1 site)
Reused 3 times then disposed as
hazardous waste (1 site)
No data (1 site)
Mixture incinerated (2 sites)
Separated water and solids;
incinerated solids (2 sites)
Diluted mixture and discharged to
POTW(lsite)
Reused once before sending to
cement kiln (1 site)
On-site distillation; still bottoms
disposed (1 site)
No data (1 site)
=======
Waste
Substrate
Partially or all
recycled
(4 sites)
Partially or all
recycled
(5 sites)
Partially or all
recycled
(3 sites)
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-30
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
REFERENCES
1. Barnard, Harris. 1998a. Kidder, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University
of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. April 24, 1998.
2. Barnard, Harris. 1998b. Kidder, Inc. Personal communication with,Lori Kincaid, University
of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. April 30, 1998.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Barnard, Harris. 1998d. Kidder, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University
of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 12, 1998.
7. Reschke, Darren. 1998. MEGTEC Systems [formerly Wolverine (Massachusetts)
Corporation]. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University of Tennessee Center for
Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 18, 1998.
8. Ibid.
9 Foundation of Flexographic Technical Association. 1999. Flexography: Principles and
Practices, 5th ed. Volume 3. Ronkonkoma, NY: Foundation of Flexographic Technical
Association.
10. Kottke, Lee. Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc. Personal communication with Trey Kellett,
Abt Associates. August 2, 2000.
11. Bemi, Dan and Steve Rach. MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication with Trey Kellett,
Abt Associates. July 14, 2000.
12. Enercon Industries Incorporated. Not dated. "Corona Treatment,"
http://www.enerconind.com/surface/papers/overview.
13. Flathmann, Kurt. 1998a. Fischer & Krecke, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid,
University'of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. June 1, 1998.
14. Flathmann, Kurt. 1998a. Op. cit. June 1, 1998.
15. Ibid.
16. Barnard, Harris. 1998c. Kidder, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid, University
of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 1, 1998.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-31
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 6
19. Ibid.
20.
RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Kottke, Lee. 1998. Anguil Environmental, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 8, 1998. '
Reschke, Darren. 1998. Op. cit. May 18, 1998.
Smith, Alan. 1998. SOA International, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. June 3, 1998.
Gilbertson, Tom. 1998. Enercon Industries, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 18, 1998. '
Smith, Alan. 1998. Op. cit. June 3, 1998.
Gilbertson, Tom. 1998. Op. cit. May 18, 1998.
Markgraf, David. 1998. Enercon Industries, Inc. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. May 11, 1998. '
27. Flathmann, Kurt. 1998b. Op cit. June 3, 1998.
U.S. EPA. 1994. P2P-Version 1.50214 computer software program. Office of Research and
Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
Energy Information Administration. 1999. Electric Power Monthly, February 1999 (with data
for November 1998), DOE/EIA- 0223(99/02).
Ross, Alexander. 1999. RadTech. Personal communication with Trey Kellett Abt
Associates. June 9, 1999.
Shapiro, Fred. 2000. P-F Technical Services. Personal communication with Lori Kincaid
University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. February 22,
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
6-32
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER?
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Chapter 7: Additional Improvement Opportunities
CHAPTER CONTENTS
7.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES 7'3
7.2 RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Silver Recovery
Solvent Recovery
Solid Waste Recycling
7.3 CONTROL OPTIONS
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-9
Sources of Flexographic Ink Pollutants Amenable to Treatment or Control Options 7-9
Control Options and Capture Devices for Air Releases 7-10
Control Options for Liquid Releases
7-12
REFERENCES
7-14
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses some techniques beyond alternative ink systems and printing processes that
flexographic printers can use to prevent pollution, reduce chemical consumption, and minimize waste. This
chapter includes sections on pollution prevention, recycling and resource recovery, and control options.
Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, involves reducing or eliminating environmental
discharges at their source (that is, before they are generated). Pollution prevention requires taking active
steps to implement changes in workplace practices, technology, and materials, such as the type of ink
used. By reducing the amount of waste produced in the first place, disposal and compliance issues are
minimized. Each step in the printing process offers opportunities for pollution prevention. Flexographic
printers may be able to receive several benefits from following pollution prevention practices, including cost
savings, improved productivity, better product quality, reduced health risks to workers, reduced pressures
of regulatory compliance, and of course reduced environmental impacts. Pollution prevention is discussed
in Section 7.1.
Recycling, which is also sometimes called resource recovery, is the focus of Section 7.2. Although recycling
is not pollution prevention, since it does not reduce the amount of pollution being generated, it too has
benefits for flexographers, including reductions in the need for new materials and for solid waste disposal.
Thus, recycling can help printers reduce the costs of doing business. Silver, solvents, and many solid
wastes can all be recycled.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
In addition, several pollution control options are possible for both liquid and gaseous forms of flexographic
ink chemicals. Section 7.3 discusses several common control options. These technologies can be very
successful in reducing waste and emissions in the flexographic industry. Control options that are discussed
in Section 7.3 include oxidizers, adsorption systems, permanent total enclosures (capture devices thatwork
with control options but do not destroy harmful emissions by themselves), and ink splitters. Control options,
however, often require a major capital investment, and must receive regular maintenance to function
efficiently. Also, even control options that destroy virtually all harmful emissions have no effect on the types
and amounts of chemicals being purchased and used by flexographic printers. That is, they do not prevent
pollution from being generated.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER?
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
7.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, reduces or eliminates
environmental discharges at their source - that is, by avoiding their creation. Pollution
prevention can be achieved by changing workplace practices, substituting safer
alternatives for harmful chemicals, and modifying equipment to reduce waste. In addition
to reduced environmental impacts, pollution prevention may yield the following benefits:
• cost savings
• improved productivity and product quality
• minimized risks to worker health
• reduced pressures of regulatory compliance
A strategy to prevent pollution should be customized to fit each printer's objectives and
production process. The first step is to construct a process flow diagram that identifies
each stage of the production process. The next step is to consider the inputs and outputs
of each process stage. Once the inputs and outputs are identified, waste streams can be
prioritized and the source of those waste streams can be targeted. Pollution prevention
options that target these inputs can then be implemented to reduce or eliminate the
corresponding waste stream.
Pollution prevention requires commitment from both management and employees. While
management action is required for process changes, employees - who are closest to the
process - often are best placed to identify pollution prevention alternatives. Pollution
prevention involves taking a proactive stance and frequently reviewing the production
processes to find new and better ways of doing business. Figure 7.1 lists the specific
process steps in the three major stages of the flexographic printing process where
pollution prevention opportunities exist.
Table 7 1 expands upon Figure 7.1 by identifying and describing specific pollution
prevention opportunities. Each of the major stages of the printing process provides many
opportunities to increase efficiency and potentially save money while improving and
maintaining performance standards. Facility-wide opportunities to practice pollution
prevention are included at the end of the table. Also, two case studies and a video that
further describe pollution prevention activities in the flexography industry are available
from the U.S. EPA. Complete ordering information is provided at the end of this chapter.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 7.1 Traditional Process Steps in Flexographic Printing
Pre-Press
Printing
Post-Press
1. Artwork and Product Design
2. Negatives and Color Proofs
3. Platemaking
4. Mounting and Proofing
5. Makeready
6. Printing
7. Cleaning
8. Laminating and Coating
9. Converting
Table 7.1 Pollution Prevention Opportunities
Printing Stage
Pre-Press
Pollution Prevention
Alternative
=====
Computerized Design
Computerized Proofs
Photopolymer Plates
Photopolymer Plate
Washing —
Alternative Solvents
Description
======
Designing and editing the artwork using computer software
can reduce the amount of chemicals that the printer uses.
By using computers to generate graphics and negatives
printers can skip the photographic developing stage of the
process, thereby eliminating the use of darkroom
chemicals.
Use of traditional nitric acid baths to etch designs into
metal plates may generate wastewater that is low in pH
and high in metal content, requiring regulation under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Printers can eliminate this waste
stream by switching to photopolymer plates. Use of
Photopolymer plates also eliminates the metal engravings
and wastes generated from the production of conventional
molded rubber plates. These wastes may be subject to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting.
Perchloroethylene, a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP), is
traditionally used in photopolymer plate washing. To avoid
hazardous waste regulations, printers may be able to use
alternative cleaners such as-citrus-based terpene solvents
n many cases, substitutes have performed satisfactorily
although slower processing times have sometimes been'
noted. However, there are some concerns about the
quality and durability of the photopolymer plates made with
hese alternative solvents.1
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-4
September 2000
-------
iHAPTERT
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Table 7.1 Pollution Prevention Opportunities (continued)
Printing Stage Pollution Prevention
Alternative
Description
Printing
Containing Volatiles
Monitoring and
Maintaining Ink
By keeping all cans, drums, and open ink fountains
covered, printers can reduce odors and worker health risks
by minimizing fugitive VOC emissions.
Installing Enclosed
Doctor Blade
Chambers
By regularly monitoring pH and viscosity of the ink during a
press run, printers can reduce the downtime and amount
of additives needed to optimize print quality.
Enclosed doctor blade chambers reduce ink evaporation
for better control of ink usage, more consistent color, and
improved performance of the inks on press. The system
reduces the amount of diluent that will evaporate during
operation, allowing the press operator to have better
control of the ink being transferred. By switching from an
open fountain, the enclosed system also minimizes VOC
emissions and worker exposure to VOCs.
Printing a Thinner Ink
Film Thickness
Reworking Press
Return Ink
Computerized Ink
Blending
Printers can increase efficiency by printing a thinner ink
film thickness. While this may require some changes, a
thinner ink film allows for faster drying times and higher
press speeds. To print a thinner film, printers may need to
minimize the anilox roll cell volume, use ink that has a high
pigment loading, and install doctor blades.
Reworking press return ink can increase efficiency, reduce
ink purchases, and reduce hazardous waste if
contamination issues can be addressed. Ink can be
reworked by blending press return ink with virgin ink of the
same color, mixing press return ink with virgin ink to make
new colors, and mixing press return ink with other colors to
make black ink.
Four-Color Printing
Software and equipment are available that can help
printers blend ink, reduce surplus ink, and reuse press
return ink.
Co-Extruded Film
The limited number of inks in four-color process printing
can minimize the amount of mixed colored inks used and
eliminate residues of unusual colors at the end of each job.
With the new chambered doctor blade systems, the
increased use of process printing to produce a broad
spectrum of colors has become more easily attainable.
Films can be co-extruded to have panels of color in a clear
field. This has been done for bread bags and garment
bags. White panels are extruded into the clear film.
Printing is accomplished without the need to lay down a
heavy coverage of white ink.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-5
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
| Printing Stage Pollution Prevention
Alternative
Table 7.1 Pollution Prevention Opportunities (continued)
======
Description
Printing
Methanol Substitution
One of the most commonly used chemicals in printing is
methanol, which is a HAP. Methanol is relatively
inexpensive but has a high evaporation rate, so that a
great deal of it may be used during a print run. Also,
because of its high evaporation rate and classification as a
HAP, the emission of methanol if strictly regulated. Many
printers have been able to substitute isopropyl alcohol (a
less volatile compound) for methanol in their solvent
blends.
MEK and MIBK
Substitution
Running Lighter Color
Jobs First
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIBK), both HAPs, are used in very minute quantities as
denaturants. These can be removed from ethanol blends
without any loss of performance characteristics.
Wash Tubs
By running lighter jobs before darker jobs, printers can
reduce the number of necessary clean-ups.
On-Press Cleaning
Cleaning of rollers, doctor blade components, pumps, and
other removable parts of the ink train can be accomplished
in covered wash tubs with a relatively small quantity of
cleaning solution. The solution can be either a slow-
evaporating, penetrating solvent or a caustic solution It is
helpful to squeegee parts before dipping them into the
wash tubs to remove excess inks. Wash tubs generate far
less hazardous waste than traditional hand-cleaning.
Multi-Stage Cleaning
With Solvents
Automatic, on-press cleaning systems are being
developed. One current model features a built-in air jet
spray system to clean the doctor blade assembly and
anilox roll, using much less cleaning solution than hand
cleaning in a very short cycle time.
Solvent use can be reduced by using a multi-stage
cleaning procedure for the printing decks. This procedure
reduces solvent use by reusing solvents that are otherwise
discarded. Pre-used solvent is used in the first stage to
remove the majority of the ink. In the second stage a
cleaner but still pre-used solvent is employed to remove
more ink. In the third stage, clean solvent removes any
remaining ink. Once the solvent in the first stage becomes
too dirty, it is discarded and is replaced by the solvent from
the second stage. The third stage solvent is then used in
the second stage, and virgin solvent is used in the third
stage.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-6
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Table 7.1 Pollution Prevention Opportunities (continued)
[printing Stage | Pollution Prevention
Alternative
Printing
Post-Press
Facility-Wide
Using Alternative
Methods to Clean
Anilox Rolls
Material Substitution
Description
===^=
Printers can choose among many alternative options for
cleaning anilox rolls to reduce or eliminate the need for
traditional cleaning solvents. These alternatives use dry
ice, lasers, polyethylene beads, or sodium bicarbonate.
Solventless Adhesives
Solvent-based coatings and adhesives can be replaced
with water-based ones, minimizing VOC emissions.
The use of solventless adhesives reduces VOC emissions.
Safer Cleaning
Solvents
Segregate Hazardous
Waste
Returnable Containers
Replacing traditional cleaning solvents with safer cleaning
solvents reduces risks to worker health and VOC
emissions.
Segregating hazardous wastes allows disposal of pure
instead of mixed wastes. Because pure wastes are much
easier to treat than mixed ones, they are not only less
expensive to dispose of, but also require less energy.
Inventory Tracking
Using returnable containers prevents unnecessary waste
generation and results in additional cost savings.
Monitor Employee
Practices
Management
Commitment
Tracking chemical purchases and disposal can help to
maintain a minimum inventory on the shelf, thus reducing
the amount of materials wasted. For example, hazardous
waste can be minimized by labeling inks with the date and
having a "first-in, first-out" rule, i.e., rotating the inks so that
the oldest inks are used first. This avoids disposing of
expired ink as hazardous waste. Tracking systems using
bar codes take inventory control to an even higher level.
Periodic monitoring helps ensure that source reduction
practices are followed. ;
Management should establish, communicate, and
demonstrate their commitment to the concept of pollution
prevention, to encourage company-wide source reduction
in everyday practice. Management can assemble pollution
prevention teams of employees, incorporate pollution
prevention into job responsibilities, and provide incentives
for employees to prevent pollution.
Acknowledge
Employee Initiatives
Positively acknowledging pollution prevention initiatives by
company personnel can stimulate innovative ideas for
source reduction. This may be especially beneficial
because employees who are closest to the process are
often in the best position to recommend change.
Training
Pollution prevention training for company personnel may
facilitate process changes by educating workers on the
need for such change. Training also helps to encourage
general source reduction and stimulate pollution
>revention ideas by personnel.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
7.2 RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Recycling (also known as resource recovery) helps reduce the need for virgin (never
previously used) materials and lowers demand for solid waste disposal. Municipal and
local governments often sponsor recycling programs and waste exchanges. By
incorporating recycling, flexographic printers may be able to avoid or reduce the costs
of handling, permitting, shipping, and disposing of wastes, as well as the regulatory and
legal liabilities and costs.
Silver Recovery
Silver in wastewater is toxic, and its disposal is regulated locally by publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). Silver is used for film development in pre-press operations.
Printers can recover silver from the wastewater coming out of their imaging operations.
There are three main methods for recovering silver: metallic replacement, electrolytic
silver recovery, and ion exchange.
Metallic Replacement
Wastewater is passed through one or more steel wool filters in which silver is chemically
replaced by iron. The silver is collected in the form of sludge, which is then treated off-
site to extract the usable metal. This method is used in many pre-press and print shops,
and is relatively inexpensive.
Electrolytic Silver Recovery
An electric current passes between two electrodes in silver-laden wastewater, plating the
silver on the cathode in a virtually pure form. The silver is easily removed from the
cathode for reuse. This system is more expensive to purchase and maintain than the
metallic replacement system. This is often used in conjunction with a steel wool filter.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange can remove an extremely high percentage of silver, but is only suitable for
dilute solutions. In addition, this method requires a greater capital investment and
handling time than the other two methods.
Solvent Recovery
Flexographic printers who use solvent-based inks and cleaners can recover much of the
solvent for reuse in the facility. A solvent recovery system captures VOC emissions, and
uses a separation/distillation unit to separate, and collect the solvent. Recycled solvent
sometimes needs further treatment before it can be reused. Recycled solvent is often used
in cleaning operations and saves the printer the cost of buying virgin solvent.
Solid Waste Recycling
Flexographic printing operations generate solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills
or incinerated. Printers have found that recycling solid waste can reduce shipping and
disposal costs, and that items can be reused in the shop or by the supplier. Flexographic
printers can reduce solid waste hi any of the following ways:
• Require suppliers to take back all containers and packaging.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 7^3 ~
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER?
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
• Work with local government to establish recycling practices.
• Choose materials (e.g., substrates) that can be recycled.
• Minimize coatings that hinder recycling.
Some specific examples of solid waste recycling include the following ideas:
• Bale paper waste, corrugated cartons, and pallet tote boxes for recycling.
• Return cores that are used to wind rolls of films, papers, and paperboard to the
supplier for reuse.
• Collect and return shrinkwrap films for recycling. Segregate plastics by type to
enable efficient reuse of the materials.
• Clean and reuse cans, bottles, plastic jugs, drums and other containers.
• Recycle photographic chemicals and platemaking chemicals. Negatives and
photographic papers can be treated to recover silver.
• Pelletize unusable rubber, photopolymer plates, and mixed substrate wastes (e.g.,
laminations and pressure-sensitive materials) to use as alternative fuel at cement
kilns and power generation plants.
• In some states, printers can recycle components of fluorescent lamps, including
hazardous wastes like mercury.
7.3 CONTROL OPTIONS
Control technologies minimize the toxicity and volume of flexographic pollutants by
destroying them or capturing them for reuse, recycling, or disposal. Specific control
option choices need to be based on many considerations, such as regulations, the facility's
printing equipment, the ink systems and chemicals that the facility uses, cost and
performance needs, and risks to the safety and health of workers and the environment.
Control systems can be costly, must be maintained, and have the potential to fail. Using
chemicals that contain or generate pollutants carries risks for workers and the
environment, and may present a public relations problem. Disposal of regulated wastes
may require a printer to obtain status as a hazardous waste generator. The potential
disadvantages of control systems make it important for printers to consider pollution
prevention, which can reduce the need for control systems in flexographic facilities.
Sources of Flexographic Ink Pollutants Amenable to Treatment or Control Options
Pollutants that are related to flexographic printing inks and that can be mitigated using
treatment or control options fall into several categories:
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT,
7-9
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER?
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
• Air emissions
• Hazardous liquid wastes, especially solvents
• Non-hazardous liquid wastes, including many waste inks, additives, and colored
wash-water
Control Options and Capture Devices for Air Releases
All solvent-based and some water-based flexographic inks contain significant amounts of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Some flexographic inks also contain one or more
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as defined by the Clean Air Act.3
Several types of control options" for handling air emissions related to working with
flexographic inks are currently available and will be discussed in this section. In
addition, a capture device such as a permanent total enclosure (PTE) may be installed in
conjunction with control options and are part of the overall control efficiency. Three
types of devices associated with emission control are discussed in this section.
• permanent total enclosures
• oxidizers (thermal, catalytic, and regenerative)
• adsorption systems
Capture Devices
A permanent total enclosure (PTE) is a structure that captures all fugitive emissions from
a source (e.g., a single press or an entire press room) and sends them to a
destruction/recovery device. A PTE alone only captures emissions; it neither destroys
them nor reduces their use, but is part of the overall control efficiency or capture
efficiency. Because of this, a PTE is used in combination with an oxidizer, adsorption
system, or biofiltration device, which separates or destroys VOCs.
Regulations controlling air emissions are expected to continue to be strict across the
country for the foreseeable future. A PTE is currently the only capture tool that
effectively captures 100% of fugitive emissions.2 Because a PTE is a permanent
structure, only one demonstration inspection is required for a new PTE. Thereafter, as
long as the facility continues to use the PTE in the same way without significant structural
modifications, additional air inspections are not necessary.
A specific method and criteria have been set forth by EPA for constructing a PTE that
will pass inspection. Depending upon the scope and size of the work that is needed,
* Smaller amounts of ozone also may be generated by the use of corona treaters and UV lamps
but ozone can be easily destroyed at the source by relatively inexpensive devices supplied (often
with the primary equipment) by the manufacturer/distributor. Ozone that is destroyed
immediately upon creation does not present an environmental concern.
b Biofiltration, also known as bioremediation, is a currently experimental method of destroying
VOCs. This technology uses microbes that eat and digest VOCs, breaking diem down into more
environmentally benign chemicals. Biofiltration may hold promise for flexographic printing in
the future, if the technology can be improved to enable reliable destruction of virtually all
VOCs.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-10
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
construction of a PTE can be fairly modest, or it can involve a substantial capital
investment ranging up to tens of thousands of dollars.3 The installation of a PTE also
may involve compliance with local fire codes that designate the enclosed area as a
hazardous area (H occupancy) and require steps or devices such as emergency ventilation,
fire containment (fire walls and doors), an emergency egress route, and spill
containment.4 However, since most of the cost relates to capital and construction rather
than operation and maintenance, hi the long run some printers may find a PTE to be quite
economical.
A well-designed PTE captures all fugitive emissions and eliminates fugitive air emissions
to the local community. In addition, some printers may be able to benefit economically
from PTEs, as more areas introduce the use of transfer credits for air emissions. Because
a PTE guarantees 100% capture efficiency, printers in areas that require a lower
percentage of capture efficiency may be allowed to sell or trade their credits.5 For all
these reasons, PTEs are expected to continue to be an important method of controlling
fugitive air emissions for flexographic printers.
Oxidizers
Oxidizers burn air that contains VOCs and sometimes other pollutants generated in
flexography. An oxidizer breaks down VOCs into water, carbon dioxide, and other gases.
Oxidation works by mixing the emissions from the press exhaust with oxygen and heat.
There are several types of oxidizers, including catalytic, thermal, thermal recuperative,
and regenerative oxidizers. All types of oxidizers have the potential to achieve virtually
complete destruction of VOCs. Straight thermal oxidizers require high operating
temperatures (typically at least 1600°F), whereas thermal recuperative oxidizers recover
much of the waste heat from exhaust gases and thus are more economical. Catalytic
oxidizers can operate at lower temperatures than thermal types (up to about 1250°F) and
use less fuel. Regenerative oxidizers may be either thermal or catalytic, as defined
above.6
Catalytic oxidizers are more common in the flexographic printing industry than are
thermal oxidizers; however, recent technical advances in thermal systems may make these
appropriate for some printers.7 Because of their lower operating temperatures, catalytic
oxidizers create a very low percentage of NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions0 compared to
thermal oxidizers. However, catalytic oxidizers may not be effective in treating gases
from certain silicone ink additives, because silicone masks or poisons the catalyst.8
Oxidizers usually involve a significant capital and installation investment, as well as
substantial operating expenses. The total capital cost of an oxidizer can range from
$150,000 to $400,000 or more, depending upon the size and needs of the facility. • • •
Energy consumption considerations for catalytic oxidizers are discussed in Chapter 6.
Adsorption Systems
These devices contain a bed of activated carbon, zeolite (an aluminum-silicate crystal),
or polymers. This substance attracts VOCs, which adsorb (concentrate) on the surface of
the medium. Adsorption separates but does not destroy VOCs. The air that no longer
contains VOCs then can be released, and the VOCs can be reused or recycled. A typical
: Nitrogen oxides are ozone precursors.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
adsorption system alone has the potential to remove 95% or more of VOCs,6 and is
normally used in conjunction with a PTE to ensure virtually complete removal of VOCs.
Carbon adsorption systems work most efficiently in capturing a single solvent or a very
dilute stream of VOCs, and they are not necessarily compatible with all inks. Because
flexography typically uses a large number of solvents, carbon adsorption was not
appropriate for most printers at the time of publication of this CTSA.6
The costs of adsorbent systems ranges widely depending on a number of factors,
including the type and size of the facility, the type of absorbent system, state regulatory
requirements, and permitting issues. Systems can cost from several thousand to several
hundred thousand dollars. Also, since an adsorption system is normally used in
conjunction with a PTE, that cost must be considered as well. For these reasons, a
meaningful cost range for this technology is beyond the scope of this document."1
Control Options for Liquid Releases
Flexographic facilities need to pay attention to three characteristics of liquid ink wastes:
percentage of solvents, turbidity (discoloration), suspended solids, and hazardous
substances.
The maximum solvent content allowed in wastewater is site-specific. For facilities using
only water-based inks, if the percentage of petroleum-based solvents is below the level
allowed by the facility's municipal wastewater facility (Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
or POTW) or permit (if applicable), the liquid waste might not be regulated as hazardous
waste. Facilities using only UV inks typically will not have solvent-containing liquid
wastes.
For all types of inks, EPA considers discoloration of water to constitute "turbidity,"
which is a pollutant category. Pigments and other discoloring substances may have to be
removed before the water can be discharged to a POTW. Also, ink wastes may have
other substances that are regulated as hazardous (e.g., metals) and must be removed
before discharge. Please see Chapter 2, Federal Regulations, for more information on
chemicals in this CTSA that may be regulated as hazardous wastes.
Ink splitters are used to separate out the solids in wastewater. The water then can be
released to a POTW and the pigment-containing sludge sent to a landfill. The capital cost
of an ink splitter can range from several thousand dollars to more than $30,000, which
can be offset by lower disposal costs and POTWS fees. The relatively low cost of ink
splitters and their benefits in helping printers to comply with water emissions standards
can make this technology useful to many flexographers.
d The U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards "EXPOS Control Cost Manual"
(5lh Ed., February 1996, document EPA 453/B-96-001), provides detailed procedures, data, and
equations for sizing and estimating capital and operating costs of thermal regenerative carbon
adsorption systems.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-12
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
REFERENCES
1. Shapiro, Fred. 1997. P-F Technical Services, Inc. Pollution Prevention for the Flexographic
Printer. Internal document for the Design for the Environment Flexography Project.
2. Bemi, Dan, MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication, September 23, 1999.
3. Mike Lukey, Pacific Environmental Science, cited in Bemi, Dan: Permanent Total Enclosure
Technology Part 2. Flexo, April 1998, p 69.
4. Mostafaei, Anooshehi "Environmental Corner." Die-Line. California Film Extruders &
Converters Association. January 2000.
5. Bemi, Dan, MEGTEC Systems. Personal communication, September 23, 1999.
6. EPA-CICA: Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheets: Catalytic, thermal, recuperative, and
regenerative incinerators.
7. Rach, Steve, and Bemi, Dan: Emission controls. In The Flexo Environment (prepublication
draft), June 11, 1999.
8. Green, David A, and Northeim, Coleen M: Alternate VOC control technique options for small
rotogravure and flexography facilities. EPA Publication 600-R-92-201, October 1992.
9. Ellison, Dave. American National Can Company. Written comments to Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. June 1997.
10. Rizzo, Tony. Lawson Marden Label. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. May 22, 1997.
11. Steemer, Hans. Windmoller and Holscher. Telephone discussion with Laura Rubin, Industrial
Technology Institute. May 6, 1997.
12. National Association of Printers and Lithographers. NAPL Heatset and Non-Heatset Web Press
Operations Cost Study; 1989-1990. Teaneck, NJ, 1990.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-13
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
This page is intentionally blank.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
7-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Chapter 8: Choosing Among Ink Technologies
CHAPTER CONTENTS
J.1 SUMMARY BY INK SYSTEM AND PRODUCT LINE 8-2
Introduction 8-2
Solvent-based Inks 8-14
Water-based Inks 8-17
UV-cured Inks : 8-2°
8.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT ... 8-24
Introduction to Social Benefit-Cost Assessment 8-24
Benefit-Cost Methodology and Data Availability 8-26
Potential Private and Public Costs 8-26
Potential Private and Public Benefits 8-31
Summary of Social Benefit-Cost Assessment 8-34
8.3 DECISION INFORMATION SUMMARY 8-36
Introduction 8-36
Ink System Comparison 8-37
Highlights of Chemical Category Information 8-41
Hazard, Risk and Regulation of Individual CTSA Chemicals 8-46
Suggestions for Evaluating and Improving Flexographic Inks 8-63
REFERENCES 8'66
INTRODUCTION
Earlier chapters of this CTSA presented the findings of the research regarding risk, performance, cost, and
resource requirements. This chapter takes a different look at some of that information. Section 8.1
summarizes the individual ink systems and product lines, using the solvent-based ink system as the baseline
and providing comparisons to water-based and UV-cured inks. Performance tests, environmental and
health impacts, and resource conservation are discussed.
Section 8.2 provides a qualitative social benefit-cost assessment of the different ink system, analyzing the
private (printer) and social implications of the CTSA findings. Social costs and benefits are those that do
not affect the flexographic facility directly, but that do affect the larger population and the environment. This
viewpoint is one that is rarely considered within an industry setting.
Section 8 3 compares the three ink systems broadly. This section describes the chemical categories
analyzed in the CTSA, and identifies the hazards and risks of each chemicals. Flexographic professionals
can use this information to identify chemicals that they either may wish to avoid or that they may to use as
safer alternatives.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-1
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
8.1 SUMMARY BY INK SYSTEM AND PRODUCT LINE
Introduction
The results of the DfE Flexography Project, as shown in this CTSA, present information
about several important factors that contribute to the selection of a flexographic ink. The
performance, human and environmental risk, and operational costs associated with an ink
are issues that a printer must consider when choosing among ink technologies. Though
this research is not an exhaustive analysis of all flexographic inks, it provides an indication
of how nine product lines of solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks compare on
wide-web film substrates. Individual printers will have conditions (and results) that vary
from those encountered in this analysis, but the results in this report will be a starting point
for determining how changes might affect the circumstances of a particular facility. Ink
formulators also may gain from this analysis by learning how the hazards posed by
chemicals in isolation translate into health and environmental risks when the chemicals are
placed in the context an ink mixture used in a printing facility.
The DfE Flexography Project studied solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks on
three wide-web films: low-density polyethylene (LDPE), co-extruded polyethylene/ethyl
vinyl acetate (PE/EVA), and oriented polypropylene (OPP). For each type of ink,
between two and four specific product lines were tested. Table 8.1 indicates which
substrates were used with each product line.
Table 8.1 Ink and Substrate Combinations
Product Line
Solvent-based #1
Solvent-based #2
Water-based #1
Water-based #2
Water-based #3
Water-based #4
UV-cured #1
UV-cured #2
UV-cured #3
Substrate
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA, OPP
OPP
OPP
LDPE, PE/EVA
OPP
LDPE
LDPE, PE/EVA
PE/EVA
The performance chapter (Chapter 4) discussed the results of 18 tests on the nine product
lines that were studied hi the CTSA. Five of these tests were selected to highlight in this
summary (Table 8.2).1 These performance tests were selected because they were
measured for all three systems; they display a range of important ink properties; and they
were minimally Dependent on external factors such as press equipment and operator
expertise. Please see Chapter 4 for the results of the other performance tests.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-2
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.2 Selected Key Performance Indicators
Indicator Description
Scale Interpretation
Blocking Measures the bond between ink and substrate
when heat and pressure are applied. Ink transfer
from a printed substrate to a surface in contact with
the print indicates that blocking has occurred.
0-5 0 = no blocking
and a good ink-
substrate bond.
5 = complete
blocking or removal
Gloss
Measures the reflected light directed at the surface
from an angle. The test was only performed on
LDPE and PE/EVA substrates, because gloss is
irrelevant on laminated substrates (such as the
OPP product in this project).
0-100 Higher numbers
indicate higher
reflectivity
Ice Water Measures the integrity and flexibility of the ink on
Crinkle the substrate when exposed to refrigerator and
freezer conditions. The sample was submerged in
a container of ice water for 30 minutes, then
removed and twisted rapidly 10 times. •
0-100 0 = intact ink finish
100 = complete
removal of finish
Mottle Measures the spottiness or non-uniformity of an ink
film layer.
Open- Lower values
ended indicate a more
consistent finish.
Higher values
indicate a more
variable finish.
Trap
Measures the ability of an ink to adhere to an
underlying ink. This trait is important where inks are
printed on top of one another in .order to generate
precise color hues.
0-100% 100% = ideal
The operating cost information developed in this CTSA includes costs for materials,
labor, capital, and energy, calculated per 6,000 square feet of image based on the
methodology press speed of 500 feet per minute.
The energy consumption of each ink system is calculated per 6,000 square feet of image.
Equipment included in this calculation includes hot air dryers, blowers, oxidizers, UV
curing lamps, and corona treaters.
The results of the selected performance tests and the operating cost and energy
consumption analyses are summarized in Table 8.3. Data for these three categories are
presented for each product line (e.g., solvent-based ink #1), and also are averaged across
the whole ink system. The solvent-based ink system is considered the baseline for this
analysis; each water-based and UV-cured product line is compared to the baseline results
in Table 8.3 through the use of ft (better than the baseline) or X (worse than the
baseline).
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-3
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.4 summarizes the human health risks of each product line. Three categories of
information are included in this table.
• Range of chemicals with clear risk: This column shows the total number of
compounds with a clear health risk3 to pressroom workers for each formulation in
a product line. For example, if two chemicals with clear risk were found in one
formulation of solvent-based #1, four were found in another formulation, and the
other three formulations had numbers between these, the range would be 2-4.
This range incorporates compounds that are expected to pose clear occupational
risk to flexographers based on either toxicological studies or EPA's Structure
Activity Team (SAT) assessments.
• Chemical categories with clear risk: Lists the chemical categories that presented
clear inhalation risk to pressroom workers and clear dermal risks to press- and
prep-room workers. Superscripts next to each category name indicate whether the
compounds presented a clear risk through inhalation (inhal) or dermal (derm)
exposure. Categories are denoted with "(SAT)" if the compound with clear risk
was analyzed by the SAT. An SAT evaluation is considered to be a less accurate
measurement method than toxicological information. (See explanation in Chapter
3: Risk.)
• Toxicological endpoints: In toxicological tests, researchers record observed
effects of the given chemical. These qualitative observations, called toxicological
endpoints, indicate effects that have been associated with compounds in
formulations in each of the respective product lines. The information is separated
based on the exposure route, because effects may be different depending on
whether a compound is absorbed dermally or by inhalation. Toxicological
endpoints can be useful for highlighting the scope of potential human health effects
of the ink systems. The user of flexographic inks should be aware that the risk of
health effects may be present with any ink. Toxicological endpoints provide an
indication of such potential effects, but only offer a broad perspective. "Liver
effects," for example, may range in significance from liver enlargement to
cirrhosis or changes in liver cells that may lead to the growth of tumors. The first
effect may have little practical importance, but the latter may jeopardize survival.
The table does not indicate the seventy of effects, nor does it imply that all of the
effects would be observed at the exposure levels in typical flexographic prep or
press rooms.
Table 8.5 presents indicators of safety and environmental concerns associated with each
product line.
• Safety information: Three categories of safety hazards are included: reactivity,
flammability, and ignitability. Reactivity and flammability are based on scales of
0-4; 0 indicates that a compound is stable and will not burn, respectively, and 4
indicates that it is readily explosive or flammable. Ignitability is characterized as
yes or no; a compound is ignitable if it has a flashpoint below 140°F.
"Clear risk indicates that there is an inadequate level of safety for the chemical in question under the
assumed exposure conditions, and that adverse effects can be expected. See Section 3.7 of the Risk chapter
for more information about risk rankings.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-4
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Smog-related emissions: The flexographic printing process emits pollutants that
cause smog in two ways. First, VOCs are released directly from the ink
formulations as ink is applied to the substrate. Second, VOCs, nitrogen oxides,
and carbon monoxide are produced during the production of the electricity and
heat used in printing.
Ink content: Two important indicators of possible air impacts are the
concentration of VOCs and HAPs. The concentrations of both were taken from
the ink MSDSs and averaged across each formulation within each product line.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-5
September 2000
-------
o
o
II
o
Q
CO
C
CO
a:
o
o
o
CM
I
I
O
CO
-------
n-i
«
I 8
O T3
ffi-
o
o>-
CQ Sf
a>
T3
s
a.
•8
CO
Q.
O3
• c
o a.
ill
•
•8
<0
I
oj
lo
8
_c
0)
I
0)
£
I
"5
TJ
1
.
3
O)
CO
a>
§
a>
.a
o
.a
I
V)
&
3
c
'E
'500 feet per
o
TJ
. C
.g
5
to
c
o
E
CD
TJ
CD
i
E
o
T:
o
a.
(B ~
^ o
•gl
"o °
S o
than baseline
o
CO
i
2TJ< .«
Q. a) > TJ
III *
£ OTI
<5 c ,52
EL
"
TJ O.
0) ^ C X
to *- as 0)
jg
£ g-g£ ro
to ~ S ir. ."
«1 0-1=5
-------
CM
£
I
o
V)
UJ
O
O
_I
CD
-------
o
is.
a
a:
O
*s
o
1
5
8,3-
c o
u
•a
2
a.
"8
*£-§ £ -S it §
ff* rfi-R.3
c
JS? W T» (»
t
*
•a
CO
J3
i
•si
•S co
?l
pp •
llSlii
^"
O5
il"
0 o •&
to o «>
T3
(1)
U>
I
I
TO
•Q
•a
0}
u>
CO
I
§
<»•§
ll
CO
CO
4
3
I
5
CO
co
a>
V}
u.
111
O
O
o
m
^
a.
-------
C
U
o
C
CO
C
X
CO
S
O
o
o
o
si
I
o
I
CO
o
o
-------
•
I
1
1
1
t-
'
-
*£
K
Vt
O
1
^
"•
15
a
(0
£
1
1
a.
jj
O
U
O
m
,0
O
€
5
(A
rt
u
E
o
x:
O
A
-
*
baseline
comparison
l
.
'
CJ
....
=3
01
o
o
o
_j
CQ
3
a.
-------
I
0>
CO
CM
ai
O
O
o
m
D
Q.
-------
I
••€>
I
£
!!#
»ii
ts
cE
M
; Ul
IS
tf
38
'c >>
Line
rod
I
*
.«
!
!
o
I
.1
&
1
Q)
Q
I
t
C3
ba
S
X.
TO «
I"
ro -o
I'l
< 0
Range across UV
cured Inks
.S2 O
8iM
O)
c
§
.S jj "3 oo
1MIS
*li*2
II
"
c
.g
'55
o
a.
o
o
TJ
P
O.
*2
Q
MX
&
•*-*
Q.
M
CO
n*
Footnotes for Safety Hazard columns
a Scale of 0-4, in order of increasing hazard. Se
b A formulation is classified as ignitable if it has i
_o> jo
"to ^
'to ^
S *^**
>, o
"c co
"Incomplete data — reactivity information was o
d Incomplete data — flammability information wa
Footnotes for Smog-related Emissions
;j|
!§
^
CD
0)
6 Includes calculated releases from inks, solvent
>
o
'Cs
N
^
efficiency and a 95% efficient control device (oxi
S
o
B
V) C
h VOCs and HAPs may overlap between column
' UV-cured VOC content was calculated based o
o
I
I
"a.
CO
T—
i
OO
UJ
O
p
o
_l
m
13
Q.
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Solvent-based Inks
Solvent-based inks were considered the baseline for this analysis because they traditionally
are used by the most printers. There were two solvent-based product lines. Solvent-based
ink #1 was used with OPP at one facility, and solvent-based ink #2 was used with all three
substrates (LDPE, PE/EVA, and OPP) at three facilities.
Performance
Solvent-based inks performed relatively well on each performance test. The blocking
resistance test produced results that were not ideal, but were acceptable in most cases.
Solvent-based ink #1, printed in OPP, displayed a result of 1.8 (between slight cling and
cling). Solvent-based ink #2 displayed an average result of 2.7 (between cling and slight
blocking). For Solvent-based ink #2, the results may have been affected by facility-
specific conditions. The eight samples taken at Facility 5 (four each on LDPE and
PE/EVA) yielded an average score of 2.1. In contrast, the results at Facility 7 (also four
samples each on LDPE and PE/EVA) had an average score of 3.6 (between slight blocking
and considerable blocking).
Gloss was measured for solvent-based ink #2, which was printed on LDPE and PE/EVA.
For this product line, the average gloss was 53. Within these results, the values appear
to have been affected by both substrate and facility conditions. The ink appeared to
produce a glossier finish on PE/EVA; the average value on this substrate was 59 in
comparison to the average 51 on LDPE. Also, higher gloss was found at Facility 7 than
Facility 5; the average values were 57 and 51, respectively.
The ice water crinkle test was performed with solvent-based ink #2. All samples of this
ink resisted removal during this test, resulting in a 0% removal rate. These results
indicated that this solvent-based ink would be appropriate for use in cold, wet conditions.
Mottle was measured for both solvent-based inks. Solvent-based inks #1 and #2 had
values of 192 and 217, respectively, on the mottle scale. Though mottle does not have an
industry standard, these values were lower than those for the other two ink systems. It
should be noted, however, that although the average mottle rating for the two product lines
were similar, there was significant variation between the two measured formulations within
each product line. Blue inks were much more mottled than green inks. This difference
was consistent across all substrates and facilities.
Trap measurements for both solvent-based product lines were consistently near 100%.
The two solvent-based inks attained near-complete trapping; i.e., the top ink adhered to
the underlying ink as well as it did to exposed substrate.
Overall, the solvent-based inks performed quite well in these tests. They exhibited good
physical characteristics through the blocking, ice water crinkle, and trap tests, and
displayed comparatively good visual results in the gloss and mottle tests. For more detail
on these tests or others, please see Chapter 4: Performance.
Environmental and Health Impacts
Table 8.4 shows the number of chemicals with clear worker risk for each formulation
within the solvent-based product lines (presented as a range). In addition, the table lists
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-14
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
the chemical categories that present clear pressroom worker health risk, and identifies the
exposure route of concern for each.
In the occupational risk assessment, solvent-based ink #1 contained between two and four
chemicals with clear occupational risk in each formulation. - All chemicals of concern
presented a dermal risk, and two categories (alcohols and alkyl acetates) also presented a
clear occupational risk via inhalation. Solvent-based ink #2 also had between two and four
chemicals with clear risk in each formulation. Three chemical categories presented clear
risk: alcohols presented clear risk via both dermal and inhalation exposure, low molecular
weight hydrocarbons presented a clear risk via inhalation exposure, and organometallic
pigments presented risk via dermal exposure.
Across both product lines, the inhalation risk stems from chemical categories that are
solvents and multiple-function compounds. The compounds presenting clear dermal risk
are solvents, colorants, additives, and compounds listed as multiple-function.
The toxicological endpoints column of Table 8.4 presents possible health impacts of these
chemicals with clear risk. For solvent-based inks, health effects are possible via both
dermal and inhalation exposure.
The safety hazards of the solvent-based inks, as presented in Table 8.5, included
significant rankings for both flammability and ignitability. The flammability score of 3
indicated that the ink could be easily ignited under almost all normal temperature
conditions and that water may be ineffective in controlling or extinguishing such a fire.
Both product lines also were ignitable, indicating that they had a flashpoint (the lowest
temperature at which vapor is sufficiently concentrated that it can ignite in air) below
140°F.
Table 8^5 shows estimated air emissions of smog-related air releases resulting from inks
and energy use. Although the estimates for the solvent-based product lines assumed that
an oxidizer would be used to control emissions from the inks, the assumed capture
efficiency was only 70%. This resulted in a relatively high amount of uncaptured
emissions, so that overall, the two product lines were estimated to release 757 and 1,070
grams of smog-related emissions per 6,000 ft2 of image, respectively. Emissions from
solvent-based presses with an oxidizer may vary; they can be lower if the capture
efficiency is better, but emissions may be higher if the oxidizer is not operated optimally
and consistently.
Table 8.5 indicates that, as expected, both solvent-based.inks have a relatively high VOC
content, at an average of 58% by weight, Neither product line contained any chemicals
designated as HAPs.
Operating Costs
The operating costs associated with using these solvent-based inks are shown in Table 8.3.
The costs of ink, labor, capital, and energy per 6,000 square feet of substrate (at a press
speed of 500 feet per minute) were expected to be $31.89 for solvent-based ink #1 and
$34.06 for solvent-based ink #2.
For both of these product lines, the ink costs were the highest expense (between $14 and
$24 per 6,000 ft2, depending on the consumption rate at the individual performance
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-15
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
demonstration sites). Capital costs were the second-largest component of the operating
costs, at $11.87 per 6,000 ft2, and labor and energy the least significant part of overall
cost, at $5.29 and $0.53 per 6,000 ft2, respectively.
Two factors drove the operating costs of solvent-based ink relative to the other two ink
systems. First, this system required the use of an oxidizer. This component added
approximately $128,000 to the capital cost of the press, which in turn increased the per-
hour capital cost by $3.80, assuming a 15% annual depreciation rate over 20 years.
Second, the high evaporation rate of solvent from solvent-based inks required the press-
side addition of additional solvent. This led to a high rate of press-side solvent
consumption.
Some factors were not considered in this analysis that may affect the cost of solvent-based
inks, as well as water-based and UV-cured inks. These include the ability of an ink to
print at higher press speeds, ink monitoring requirements, and cleaning difficulties.
Factors such as these may vary among ink systems and alter their relative costs.
Resource Conservation
Energy use was the highest for solvent-based ink, at 100,000 Btu per 6,000 ft2 of image.
The dryers and associated blowers were the most significant consumers of energy,
consuming approximately 460,000 Btu/hour, or 55,000 Btu/6,000 ft2. The oxidizer
accounted for much of the remaining energy demand. It should be noted, however, that
it has become more common to recirculate exhaust from the oxidizer into the dryers. 'This
practice lowers energy requirements for the dryers so that the net effect on energy use by
adding an oxidizer is minimal.
Ink consumption, as discussed in the operating cost summary above, also was relatively
high. Based on performance demonstrations excluding those on PE/EVA (for which white
ink was not used), an average of 7.07 lbs/6,000 ft2 of solvent-based ink was consumed,
and an average of 2.48 lbs/6,000 ft2 of additives were used. This high consumption rate
is due to the relatively low solids content of solvent-based inks, which in turn necessitates
anilox rolls with larger volumes.
Summary of Solvent-based Inks
The solvent-based inks performed well on the performance tests, but they had liabilities
with respect to worker health risks, safety hazards, operating costs, and the consumption
of ink and energy.
• This system produced ideal results on the ice water crinkle and trap tests, and
produced comparatively good results on the blocking, gloss, and mottle tests (for
which no industry standards are available).
• The formulations in both product lines contained chemicals with clear worker risk
for both inhalation and dermal exposure routes, presented both flammability and
ignitability characteristics, and had high VOC emissions despite the use of
oxidizers.
• Operating costs were relatively high, due to the required use of oxidizers and
higher ink consumption rates.
• Ink and press-side additive consumption rate was high, due to the high evaporation
rates of solvents.
• Energy consumption was high, because of the added energy demands of oxidizers.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-16
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Water-based Inks
Four water-based inks were tested in this analysis. Water-based inks #1 and #2 were
tested on OPP at one facility each. Water-based #3 was tested on LDPE and PE/EVA at
two sites. Water based ink #4 was tested on OPP at one site.
Performance
The results varied considerably among water-based product lines. Blocking was one of
the tests in which the results were inconsistent across the product lines. Water-based ink
#1 displayed the worst results, with an average score of 4.0 (considerable blocking).
Water-based inks #2 and #4 performed slightly better, with scores of 3.0 and 2.5 (slight
blocking and between cling and slight-blocking), respectively.. Water-based ink #3
performed quite well, with an average score of 1.3 (between slight cling and cling).
Unlike for the solvent-based inks, the results did not appear to be facility-specific. Water-
based ink was used at both Facility 2 and Facility 3; at each, the average value was 1.3.
The system as a whole compared unfavorably to the results for the solvent-based inks .for
blocking resistance.
Gloss was measured for water-based ink #3, the one product line tested on LDPE and
PE/EVA. The average measurement was 46.5, which was somewhat lower (i.e., less
desirable) than the average for solvent-based inks. Like for the solvent-based inks, the
results seemed to be influenced by the substrate; on LDPE, the average gloss was 42.3,
and on PE/EVA, the average gloss was 54.1. Overall, this water-based product line did
not provide quite as glossy a finish as the solvent-based inks that were tested.
Ice water crinkle was also only tested for water-based ink #3. Of the 16 samples tested,
part of the coating was partially removed on five of them. In each case, only a small
fraction (about 5%) of the coating was removed; most of this removal was associated with
the blue and green formulations. The results appeared to be facility-specific; no removal
was observed at Facility 2. At Facility 3, however, five of the eight samples had some
removal (including all four samples on LDPE). These results were worse than the solvent
baseline, with which no removal was observed.
The mottle results also showed a wide range among the product lines. Water-based inks
#1 and #3 had scores of 592 and 478, respectively, which were much higher (worse) than
those for solvent-based inks. In contrast, the scores for water-based inks #2 and #4 were
186 and 115, respectively — comparable or much lower than those for the solvent-based
inks. Overall, the mottle scores for water-based inks were higher (worse) than the solvent
baseline. Like for the solvent-based inks, the blue water-based inks overall were much
more mottled than the green inks.
The wafer-based inks had fairly consistent scores for trapping - between 87 and 93%.
The results may have been facility-specific; at Facility 2 (using water-based ink #3 on
LDPE and PE/EVA), the average was 84% and at Facility 3 (also using ink #3 on LDPE
and PE/EVA), the average score was 101.5%.
Overall, the performance of the water-based inks was marked by inconsistency. In several
cases, such as blocking resistance with water-based ink #3 and mottle with inks #2 and #4,
the inks produced results better than those seen for either of the solvent-based inks.
However, several tests of the water-based inks produced results worse than the baseline.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-17
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
In addition, there was variation between facilities using the same product line and
substrates for the ice water crinkle and trap tests. The results may indicate that it is
possible for water-based inks to obtain or exceed the level of performance of solvent-based
inks for some parameters, but that it may be necessary to match the ink closely to the
substrate being printed and to control other operating conditions carefully.
Environmental and Health Impacts
In the occupational risk assessment, the water-based product lines, as indicated in Table
8.4, had between one and four chemicals with clear worker health risk in each
formulation. Water-based inks #1 and #2 both had the same range of chemicals with clear
risk as the solvent-based inks — between two and four. The range for water-based ink #3
was between one and four, and that for ink #4 was between three and four chemicals with
clear risk per formulation.
In each product line, alcohols and amides or nitrogenous compounds produced clear
worker risk via dermal exposure and in most cases via inhalation as well. Other chemical
categories with clear risk included ethylene glycol ethers, organic pigments, and
organometallic pigments. The risk in these water-based inks, therefore, arose from
solvents, pigments, and multiple-function compounds.
Table 8.4 presents toxicological endpoints associated with compounds in the water-based
inks. As with the solvent-based inks, effects may occur both via dermal and inhalation
exposure.
The safety hazard characteristics of the water-based inks in this analysis were variable,
as indicated in Table 8.5. None were reactive or ignitable. Likewise, for flammability,'
water-based inks #2 and #3 both had ratings of 0 or 1. In contrast, however, water-based
inks #1 and #4 had flammability ratings of 3 for some formulations. This difference
illustrates that despite the common classification as "water-based", the content of
flammable solvents can vary considerably.
The VOC content data also demonstrate the differences among product lines. In Table
8.5, inks #1 and #4 were comprised of 9 and 14 % VOCs by weight, respectively. Printers
who use water-based ink to comply with the Clean Air Act generally use inks with less
than 4% VOC content and minimize their use of VOC press-side solvents and additives.
It should be noted, however, that although product lines #2 and #3 contain only small
levels of VOCs (1% in each), they also contain small concentrations of HAPs.
Table 8.5 presents the estimated smog-related air emissions associated with the use of
water-based inks. Despite the lack of an oxidizer, emissions were calculated to be
considerably lower than those for the baseline. Inks and press-side materials were
expected to release between 110 and.250 grams per 6,000 ft2, with another 63 grams
released due to energy consumption.
Overall, the risk associated with water-based inks is quite variable. Water-based inks #2
and #3 had an equal or lower number of chemicals with clear worker health risk compared
to the baseline, had flammability ratings of 1, and had among the lowest releases of smog-
related compounds of the three systems. In contrast, water-based inks #1 and #4 had an
equal or higher number of chemicals with clear risk compared to the baseline, had
flammability ratings that for several formulations were equal to that of the baseline, and
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-18
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
produced high levels of smog-related compounds. It is clear, then, that the risks associated
with these water-based inks were very much formulation-specific.
Operating Costs
For all product lines, water-based ink was less expensive than the baseline. The costs for
materials, labor, capital and energy ranged between $24 and $30 per 6,000 ft2 of image,
but on average the water-based inks were $6.40 less expensive to use than the solvent-
based inks. Two effects were responsible for this difference: the lack of an oxidizer and
the lower consumption of ink and press-side fluids.
The oxidizer generates a strain both bn capital and energy costs. As discussed in the
solvent-based ink summary, an oxidizer used on two presses may cost approximately
$250,000 to purchase and install. In addition, depending on the amount of solvent
loading, energy costs for the oxidizer can be approximately $2.11 per hour, or $0.25 per
6,000 ft2 of image.
In addition, the ink and additive costs were lower for water-based inks. The per-pound
price of water-based inks was actually higher: $1.60 and $3.00 per pound for white and
colored water-based inks, respectively, compared to $1.40 and $2.80 per pound for the
solvent-based inks. However, the consumption rate was considerably lower for water-
based inks, which led to the overall lower costs.
Resource Consumption
As indicated in Table 8.3, energy consumption was the lowest for water-based inks.
Among the gas-heated air dryer and electric blower and corona treater, the water-based
inks were expected to demand 610,000 Btu/hour, or 73,000 Btu/6,000 ft2 of substrate.
The dryers were expected to consume considerably more energy than those for solvent-
based ink (500,000 Btu/hour for the water-based inks compared to 360,000 Btu/hour for
solvent-based ink), because water is more difficult to dry than organic solvents; however,
the lack of an oxidizer more than offset the difference.
Ink consumption also was lower for water-based ink compared to the baseline. On average
(excluding ink usage on PE/EVA, the white substrate), 4.73 Ibs of ink and 0.31 Ibs of
press-side solvents and additives were consumed per 6,000 ft2 for the water-based system.
This represents a 33% decrease in ink consumption and an 88% decrease in press-side
solvent and additive consumption compared to the baseline.
Summary of Water-based Inks
The water-based inks studied in this CTS A were very diverse in their performance and risk
results and chemical composition, but had better operating cost and resource consumption
characteristics.
• Individual product lines performed equal to or better than the baseline in blocking
and mottle. However, many of the results for these and other tests were worse
than the baseline, highlighting the importance of carefully choosing the specific
product when using a water-based ink.
• With respect to the chemical composition and worker health risks of the
formulations, as indicated in Table 8.5, these inks contained from 1% to 14%
VOCs and from 0% to 3.4% HAPs by weight. The relatively high VOC content
in two of the product lines had significant impacts on the safety hazard ratings,
and the presence of HAPs may have increased the number of chemicals with clear
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-19
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
worker risk. Though water-based inks are often considered to be safer than
solvent-based inks, the results indicate that water-based inks are not always
"clean." It should be noted that the health concerns associated with cross-linkers
were not addressed by this study. These chemicals, which can be added to water-
based inks to improve adhesion, are thought to cause worker health concerns but
were not used hi the performance demonstrations.
The operating costs and energy consumption of water-based inks were
substantially better than the baseline. Much of the difference was due to the lack
of an oxidizer; for water-based inks with VOC contents above state-mandated
control levels, this cost and energy advantage may be reduced substantially.
UV-cured Inks
UV-cured inks were considered a "new developing technology" for wide-web film
applications when the performance demonstrations were planned and conducted in 1996.
Significant changes and improvements have been made to the system and equipment since
then.
Three UV-cured inks were used in this analysis. UV-cured ink #1 was tested on LDPE,
UV ink #2 was tested on LDPE and PE/EVA, and UV-cured ink #3 was tested on
PE/EVA; each ink was tested at one location.
Performance
As with water-based inks, some performance results were better than those of the baseline,
but many were not. Blocking was one test in which UV-cured inks performed very well!
UV-cured inks #1 and #3 both scored an average of 1.0, indicating only slight cling. UV-
cured ink #2 had an average score of 2.1, which indicates more substantial cling but very
little actual blocking. In contrast, the average score for the solvent baseline was 2.3. This
indicates that these UV-cured inks performed well in conditions of heat and pressure.
The ratings for gloss were substantially lower (worse) than those for the baseline. The
average score for the three coatings was 38.4, compared to the baseline value of 53.0.
This is an unexpected result, since high gloss is generally thought of as a feature of UV-
cured inks. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown, but it may indicate that if a high-
gloss UV-cured ink is needed for a given application, the specific formulations should be
chosen carefully.
The ice water crinkle test results were perfect on UV-cured inks #1 and #3 - no ink
removal was observed. However, ink #2 was partially removed on each of the eight
samples tested. This removal was observed on both LDPE and PE/EVA substrates,
indicating that the effect may not be simply substrate-dependent. It may be possible that
the removal is due to the formulation itself or to variables at the performance
demonstration site.
Mottling associated with UV-cured inks was slightly worse than the solvent baseline, but
better than that of the water-based inks. UV-cured ink #2 was equal to the baseline, with
a mottle index of 205, but inks #1 and #3 were higher at 271 and 273, respectively. As
for solvent- and water-based inks, the blue inks in each product line displayed more
mottling.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-20
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
The formulations showed a range of trapping values, but ultimately the average was close
to that of the water-based inks. The trapping value of UV-cured ink #3 was 95 %, which
approached the value of the baseline. However, ink #1 had a scorq of only 82%. The
average among the three product lines was 89 %.
As for water-based inks, UV ink performance results varied considerably. Even within
a product line, the performance could vary from test to test. For example, UV-cured ink
#3 performed very well on the physical tests (a blocking score of 1.0, no removal with the
ice water crinkle test, and a trap value of 95%). However, it received relatively poor
gloss and mottle scores. The converse was true for ink #2; it had the best gloss and mottle
scores of the UV inks, but had the worst blocking and ice water crinkle results.
Environmental and Health Impacts
Overall the risks associated with UV-cured inks are marked by uncertainty. In the
occupational risk assessment, few of the chemicals have been subjected to toxicological
testing Though the EPA Structure Activity Team (SAT) analyzed the chemicals based on
their molecular structure and similarity to chemicals that have been tested, the information
is considered to be less certain than that based on direct toxicological research. Testing
is necessary to better understand the risks associated with this ink system. The results are
based on the risks of the uncured inks, such that risk results may be overestimated if the
harmful components chemically react and are integrated into the finished coating.
For UV-cured inks #1 and #3, one or two chemicals per formulation presented a clear
occupational risk. This range was lower than that of the baseline. However, UV-cured
ink #2 had four or five chemicals with clear risk per formulation, which was higher than
the baseline range. Across the three product lines, the chemicals with clear worker risk
were monomers, oligomers, colorants, and multiple function compounds. In their uncured
form, some of these chemicals were reported to present clear risk through both dermal and
inhalation exposure routes.
The toxicological endpoints associated with compounds in UV-cured inks are presented
in Table 8 4. In contrast to the solvent-based and water-based inks, fewer types of
possible human health effects associated with inhalation of the UV-cured inks were
reported It is not known, however, whether there were fewer observed effects because
UV-cured inks are safer or simply because less research has been undertaken on the
compounds used in this ink system.
The safety hazard information provided in Table 8.5 is not fully available for UV-cured
chemicals because the MSDSs for two of the product lines were generated according to
guidelines other than those of the U.S. The one product line for which information was
available showed a reactivity level of 1, a flammability level of 1, and it was not igmtable.
These levels represent a lesser flammability and ignitability concern compared to the
baseline, but the (minimal) reactivity score indicates that the ink should be stored in a dry
location that is not subject to high temperatures or pressures.
The potential difference in air releases before and after curing can be seen by ^paring
the Smog-Related Emissions and Ink Content columns in Table 8.5. Particularly for UV-
cured#2 substantial VOCs could be released from the uncured ink. When combined with
the emissions associated with the system's high demand for electricity the overall
emissions could be significant. However, the emissions associated with the UV-cured inks
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-21
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
were all considerably lower than those of the solvent baseline at the assumed emissions
capture rate.
In contrast, the VOC content for the cured formulations is expected to be less than 1 %
by weight. The volatile matter that was found in the uncured material would be chemically
transformed and incorporated into the finished product upon curing.
Overall, the UV-cured inks appeared to have fewer chemicals of concern compared to the
solvent baseline, and these concerns may decrease further for cured ink. However more
research is needed into the potential health effects of the chemicals for which no direct data
were available. Furthermore, though UV-cured inks #1 and #3 had fewer chemicals with
clear worker risk and lower emissions than the baseline, the opposite was true for UV-
cured ink #2. The risks associated with UV-cured ink formulations, therefore mav varv
significantly. J
Operating Costs
The cost of operating a UV-cured system was calculated to be higher than for the other
two systems. The average cost was $3.80 higher than the baseline per 6,000 ft2. One ink
UV-cured ink #3, had lower operating costs than the baseline, but much of this is due to
the fact that it was only printed on PE/EVA, and therefore white ink was not necessary.
Several factors contributed to these higher operating costs. First, the prices of UV-cured
inks are approximately $6 more for white ink and $7 more for colored inks, per pound
Ink consumption per square inch of substrate is lower for UV inks, but if anilox rolls are
not optimized for these inks, the lower consumption would not be fully realized Another
factor is that UV-cured systems also run exclusively on electricity. In contrast, solvent-
and water-based inks typically fuel dryers and oxidizers with natural gas, which is less
expensive. Finally, the capital cost of a UV-cured press is higher than that of a water-
based ink press. Though a UV-cured press does not require hot-air dryers, the UV curing
lamps are more expensive than these dryers. (The cost of a UV-cured press is expected
to be similar to that of a solvent-based press, however, which also has an oxidizer system.)
Resource Conservation
UV-cured inks had both lower energy and ink consumption rates compared to the baseline
The UV-cured process consumed approximately 650,000 Bra/hour, or78,000 Btu/6 000
ft2 at a press speed of 500 feet per minute. Both the energy costs and air releases are
higher for UV than for the other two systems, though; this is because all of the energy is
obtained from electricity, which is both more expensive and is produced inefficiently in
comparison to on-site natural gas combustion.
The consumption rate of UV-cured inks was the lowest among the three systems. On non-
PE/EVA substrates, an average of 3.47 Ibs (and almost no additives) were consumed per
6,000 ft2. When comparing this figure to the amount of ink and additives consumed by
the baseline, UV-cured inks consumed six pounds less material per 6,000 ft2.
Summary of UV-cured Inks
Like water-based inks, UV-cured inks displayed variability among the product lines.
• The performance tests had mixed results - improving upon the baseline for
blocking but mostly trailing the baseline for the other tests.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-22
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
For worker risk, the UV-cured inks on average contained fewer chemicals with
clear risk per formulation than the baseline. However, one ink (#2) had relatively
high VOC air emission rates and more chemicals with clear risk, indicating a
potential variability among the UV-cured product lines. The comparatively high
number of chemicals with a clear worker health risk that only were analyzed by
the SAT signals two issues. Specifically for this analysis, it indicates that there is
considerable uncertainty associated with the UV risk analysis. More generally,
it may indicate that compounds used in UV-cured inks are of concern but that their
risks are poorly understood. These results indicate that research on these
chemicals should be a priority.
Operating costs of the UV-cured inks were higher compared to the solvent
baseline, primarily because of the price of ink.
The UV-cured inks produced better results than the baseline for resource
conservation; they required less energy and considerably less ink.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-23
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
8.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIAL BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
Introduction to Social Benefit-Cost Assessment
Social benefit-cost analysis3 is a tool used by policy makers to systematically evaluate the
impacts to all of society resulting from individual decisions. A social benefit-cost analysis
seeks to compare the benefits and costs of a given action, considering both the internal and
external costs and benefits.b Such an approach is unlike business decision making, which
generally only considers the internal (or private) costs and benefits of an action without
taking into account any accompanying externalities.
The decision evaluated in this assessment is the choice of a flexographic ink system
Flexographic printers have a number of criteria they may use to assess which ink system
technology or product line they will use. For example, a printer might consider what
impact their choice of an ink system might have on operating costs, liability costs,
insurance premiums, or the cost of compliance with environmental regulations. These
criteria are all part of the internal decision making process; they do not include
considerations that may be of importance to society as a whole.
This benefit-cost assessment considers both the impact of choosing between various ink
systems and product lines on the printer (internal costs and benefits) and on other members
of society (external costs and benefits), such as reductions in environmental damage and
reductions in the risk of illness for the general public. Table 8.6 defines a number of
terms used in this benefit-cost assessment, including externality, and public (external) costs
and benefits.
The term analysis" is used here to refer to a more quantitative analysis of social benefits and costs where
a monetary value is placed on the benefits and costs to society of individual decisions Examples of'
quantitative benefit-cost analyses are the regulatory impact analyses done by EPA when developing federal
environmental regulations. The term "assessment" is used here to refer to a more qualitative examination
of social benefits and costs. The evaluation performed in the CTSA process is more correctly termed an
assessment because many of the social benefits and costs of flexographic ink technologies are identified but
not monetized. '
^Private costs typically include any direct costs incurred by the decision maker and are generally reflected
in the manufacturer's balance sheet. In contrast, public costs are incurred by parties other than the primary
participants to the transaction. Economists distinguish between private and public costs because each will
affect the decision maker differently. Although public costs are real costs to some members of society
they are not incurred by the decision maker, and firms do not normally take them into account when '
making decisions. A common example of these "externalities" is an electric utility whose emissions are
reducing crop yields for the farmer operating downwind. The external costs experienced by the farmer in
the form of reduced crop yields are not considered by the utility when making decisions regarding
electricity production. The farmer's losses do not appear on the utility's balance sheet
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-24
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.6 Glossary of Benefit-Cost Analysis Terms
Term
Definition
ost of
ness
financial term referring to the liability and health care insurance costs a company must pay to
rotect itself against injury or disability to its workers or other affected individuals. These costs are
nown as illness benefits to the affected individual.
xposed
opulation
he estimated number of people from the general public or a specific population group who are
xposed to a chemical through wide dispersion of a chemical in the environment (e.g., DDT). A
pecific population group could be exposed to a chemical due to its physical proximity to a
lanufacturing facility (e.g., residents who live near a facility using a chemical), use of the chemical or
product containing a chemical, or through other means.
he estimated number of employees in an industry exposed to the chemical, process, and/or
echnology under consideration. This number may be based on market share data as well as
stimations of the number of facilities and the number of employees in each facility associated with
ie chemical, process, and/or technology under consideration.
xposed
Vorker
opulation
xternality
cost or benefit that involves a third party who is not part of a market transaction; "a direct effect on
nother's profit or welfare arising as an incidental by-product of some other person's or firm's
igitimate activity."2 The term "externality" is a general term which can refer to either external
enefits or external costs.
Human
Health
Jenefits
deduced health risks to workers in an industry or business as well as to the general public as a result
f switching to less toxic or less hazardous chemicals, processes, and/or technologies. An example
would be switching to a less volatile organic compound, lessening worker inhalation exposures as
yell as decreasing the formation of photochemical smog in the ambient air.
ftSll CIO LICWI CCTOII ly LI 1^ IVI I I iMtiwi 4 \st ffi iv WM» iv • ..»».. —. . • —^ -- - -•
"he cost of adverse human health effects associated with production, consumption, and disposal of
rm's product. An example is respiratory effects from stack emissions, which can be quantified by
nalyzing the resulting costs of health care and the reduction in life expectancy, as well as the lost
vages as a result of being unable to work.
Human
Health
Dosts
ndirect
Medical
osts
ndirect medical costs associated with a disease or medical condition resulting from exposure to a
hemical or product Examples would be the decreased productivity of patients suffering a disability
.r death and the value of pain and suffering borne by the afflicted individual and/or family and friends
rhe direct gain received by industry or consumers from their actions in the marketplace. One
3xample includes the revenue a firm obtains in the sale of a good or service. Another example is the
"iatisfaction a consumer receives from consuming a good or service.
rivate
Internal)
Benefits
Private
Internal)
losts
"he direct costs incurred by industry or consumers in the marketplace. Examples include a firm's
cost of raw materials and labor, a firm's costs of complying with environmental regulations, or the co
o a consumer of purchasing a product.
Public
External)
Benefits
A positive effect on a third party who is not a part of a market transaction. For example, if an
educational program results in behavioral changes which reduce the exposure of a population group
o a disease, then an external benefit is experienced by those members of the group who did not
participate in the educational program. For the example of nonsmokers exposed to second-hand
smoke, an external benefit can be said to result when smokers are removed from situations in which
hey expose nonsmokers to tobacco smoke.
3ublic
External)
iosts
A negative effect on a third party who is not part of a market transaction. For example, if a steel mill
emits waste into a river which poisons the fish in a nearby fishery, the fishery experiences an externa
cost as a consequence of the steel production. Another example of an external cost is the effect of
second-hand smoke on nonsmokers.
Social
;osts
The total cost of an activity that is imposed on society. Social costs are the sum of the private costs
and the public costs. Therefore, in the example of the steel mill, social costs of steel production are
the sum of all private costs (e.g., raw material and labor costs) and the sum of all public costs (e.g.,
the costs associated with the poisoned fish).
Social
Benefits
The total benefit of an activity that society receives, i.e., the sum of the private benefits and the pubh
benefits For example, if a new product yields pollution prevention opportunities (e.g., reduced waste
in production or consumption of the product), then the total benefit to society of the new product is th
sum of the private benefit (value of the product that is reflected in the marketplace) and the public
benefit (benefit society receives from reduced waste).
Willingness
to-pay
Estimates used in benefits valuation are intended to encompass the full value of avoiding a health 01
environmental effect. For human health effects, the components of willingness-to-pay include the
value of avoiding pain and suffering, impacts on the quality of life, costs of medical treatment, loss o
income, and, in the case of mortality, the value of life.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-25
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Internal benefits of selecting an alternative ink system may include increased profits
resulting from improved worker productivity and'conlpany image, a reduction in energy
use, or reduced property and health insurance costs due to the use of less hazardous
chemicals. External benefits may include improved public health from a reduction in
pollutants emitted to the environment or reduced use of natural resources. Costs of the
alternative ink systems may include private costs such as changes in operating expenses
and public costs such as change in the price of the product charged to the consumer. Some
benefits and cost are both internal and external. For example, use of an alternative ink
system may result in natural resource savings.' This may benefit the printer in the form
of reduced water usage and a reduction in payments for water, and society as a whole in
the form of reduced consumption of shared resources.,
Benefit-Cost Methodology and Data Availability
The methodology for conducting a social benefit-costs assessment can be broken down into
four general steps: 1) obtain information on the relative human and environmental risk,
performance, cost, process safety hazards, and energy and natural resource requirements
of the baseline and the alternatives; 2) construct matrices of the data collected; 3) when
possible, monetize the values presented within the matrices; and 4) compare the data
generated for the alternative and the baseline in order to produce an estimate of net social
benefits. Section 8.1 presented the results of the first two tasks by summarizing
performance, cost, energy use, risk, and safety hazard information for the baseline and
alternative ink system technologies. The remainder of Section 8.2 interprets the presented
data hi the context of social benefit-cost assessment: the first part presents an analysis of
the potential private and public costs, the second part discusses the potential private and
public benefits.
Ideally, this benefit-cost chapter would quantify all of the social benefits and costs of using
the different ink systems and identify the technology whose use results in the largest net
social benefit. However, because of resource and data limitations and because some of the
observations in the demonstrations were very site-specific, the analysis presents a
qualitative description of the economic implications of the risks and other external effects
associated with each technology. Benefits derived from a reduction in risk are described
and discussed, but not quantified. Nonetheless, the information presented can provide
useful insights when deciding between different ink systems or product lines.
The following discussions provide examples that qualitatively illustrate some of the
important benefit and cost considerations. However, no overall recommendation is given.
Rather, personnel in each individual facility will need to examine the information
presented and identify, based on their own concerns and priorities, the best choice of ink
system and product line for their facility.
Potential Private and Public Costs
It not possible to obtain comprehensive estimates of all private costs of the alternative ink
systems. However, some cost components were quantifiable. For example, the cost
analysis estimated the average operating costs associated with each ink system, including
the material costs (ink and additive costs), labor costs for a press operator and assistant,
overhead costs (rent and heat, fire and sprinkler insurance, indirect labor, repair to
equipment, and administrative and sales overhead), average capital costs (base equipment,
required add-ons, and installation), and energy costs (electricity and natural gas). Other
cost components may contribute significantly to overall operating costs, but were not
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-26
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
quantified because they could not be reliably estimated. These cost components include
press cleaning costs, wastewater costs, sludge recycling and disposal costs, and other solid
waste disposal costs.
External costs are those costs that are not included in the printer's pricing and printing
decisions. These costs are commonly referred to as "externalities" and are costs that are
borne by society and not by the individuals who are part of a market transaction. These
costs occur in a variety of ways in the printing process. For example, if a printer uses
large quantities of a non-renewable resource during the printing process, society will
eventually bear the cost of depletion of this natural resource. Another example of an
external cost are health effects on the population living in the communities surrounding the
facility which may result from the emission of chemicals from a printing facility. The
printer does not pay for any illnesses that occur outside the facility even if they are caused
by the facility's air emissions. Society must bear these costs in the form of medical
payments or higher insurance premiums.
Differences in the operating costs estimated in the cost analysis are summarized below.
Private Costs
Operating costs are arguably the most obvious and measurable factor influencing a
business's choice of ink technologies. Lower operating costs are a direct and immediate
benefit to the printer because they will directly influence the facility's bottom line. In
addition, lower operating costs may allow the printer to reduce the cost per image to the
consumer, thus placing the printer into a more competitive position in the market.
Table 8.7 presents the overall operating costs for all ink systems studied in the
performance demonstrations, as well as a comparison between the average costs for the
alternatives and the baseline. All cost data are presented for 6,000 square feet of image
created at a press speed of 500 feet per minute. The data in Table 8.7 show that water-
based inks (Alternative 1) had a lower average operating cost than the baseline (solvent-
based inks) during the demonstrations. Water-based inks averaged a operating cost of
$26.60 per 6,000 square feet of image, while solvent-based inks averaged $33.43. In
addition, the range for water-based inks ($24.23 to $30.04) fell well below the range for
the baseline ($31.89 to $34.06). UV-cured inks (a new developing technology for wide-
web film applications) showed an average cost of $36.82, higher than both the baseline and
Alternative 1. However, the lower bound of the range for this technology ($23.69) fell
below the average costs for both the baseline and Alternative 1. The large range in costs
for this technology ($23.69 to $51.00) is not surprising given that UV-cured inks are a
new developing technology. With further technological developments, this technology is
likely to become more cost competitive with the more established ink technologies.
Table 8.7 also presents a breakdown of costs used to calculate the operating cost number.
Labor costs were constant across all ink systems at $5.29. Capital and energy costs
changed across the systems but did not change at the product line level, with the lowest
costs occurring in the water-based system at $11.41 and $0.35 respectively. Material costs
were the only costs that differed by product line within an ink system. Material costs are
the sum of the costs for color inks, white inks, and additives used during the performance
demonstrations. With the exception of one UV product line, water-based inks had the
lowest material costs.
It should be noted that these calculations are based on the costs of printing on three
different substrates used during the performance demonstrations. One of the substrates,
PE/EVA, does not require white ink and therefore has a lower material cost than substrates
that do require white ink. Since all three systems were tested on all three substrates during
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 8^7 September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
the performance demonstrations, and a similar image can be created on all three substrates,
the cost estimates presented in Table 8.7 are based on all results. However, actual
material costs for specific systems or product lines may be higher than in the performance
demonstrations if a substrate other than PE/EVA were used. Each individual printer
should determine the specific costs of a system and product line, based on the substrate and
facility-specific conditions, before making decisions on a system or product line.
Table 8.7 Operating Cost Breakdown per 6,000 ft2 of Image at 500 Feet per Minute
Product Line
Material Cost
Labor Cost
Capital Cost
Energy Cost
Total Cost
Baseline: Solvent-based Ink Systems
Solvent-based #1
Solvent-based #2
Average across
Solvent-based Inks
$14.20
$16.37
$15.29
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$11.87
$11.87
$11.87
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$31.89
$34.06
$32.98
Alternative 1: Water-based Ink Systems
Water-based #1
Water-based #2
Water-based #3
Water-based #4
Average across
Water-based Inks
$12.99
$9.73
$8.31
$7.18
$9.55
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$11.41
$11.41
$11.41
$11.41
$11.41
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$0.35
$30.04
$26.78
$25.36
$24.23
$26.60
New Developing Technology: UV-cured Ink Systems
UV-cured#1
UV-cured #2
UV-cured #3
Average across
UV-cured Inks
$32.81
$17.59
$5.50
$18.63
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$5.29
$11.87
$11.87
$11.87
$11.87
$1.03
$1.03
$1.03
$7.03
$51.00
$35.78
$23.69
$36.82
While lower operating costs are likely to be an important factor in a printer's choice of an
ink system, it is important to note that additional costs associated with the conversion from
one ink system to another may negate some or all of the cost savings discussed above. For
example, substantial capital investments may be required to switch from one system to
another. Examples of the costs of purchasing a new press and retrofitting a press from one
system to another are presented in Table 8.8. A switch to an alternative ink system also
may involve costs to retrain employees on the new printing equipment. Another influence
on private costs is the press speed of the new system. In the cost chapter of the CTSA
where costs were calculated at both the methodology speed and the speeds observed during
the performance demonstrations, the per-image costs for labor, capital, and energy
decreased at the same rate that press speed increased. Press speed is, a critical cost driver,
and its impacts should be assessed when an ink system switch is considered. Issues such
as the level of required monitoring, along with differences in setup and cleanup, may also
impact a decision among ink systems. The decision to switch from one ink technology to
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-28
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
another is necessarily site^-specific and should be made based on all costs relevant to the
facility and the ink system under consideration.
Public Costs
In addition to profitability considerations, there are potential cost savings to the consumer
associated with the operating cost differentials among the ink system technologies. A
switch to a cheaper technology by large parts of the flexographic ink market might enable
the printers to reduce the price charged to consumers.3 However, this would only be the
case if overall costs, including potential capital costs and training costs associated with
switching to a different ink system, were lower than the baseline costs. Alternatively, a
switch to a more expensive technology may lead to an increase in the cost to the consumer.
"In a competitive market, each individual firm is assumed to be a price-taker. Therefore, a benefit in terms
of reduced prices to the consumer would only be possible if the number of printers switching to a cheaper
technology is large enough to exert an influence on prices.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-29
September 2000
-------
CO
UJ
Q
3
o
I
o
I
<
1
CO
O
O
o
to
CO
S
O.
(0
8 «
o
w
§
D.
CD
'5)
c
TO
O
"8
w
*••
(0
o
o
.
re
O
CO
CO
.52
.Q
8
0
i
'EL
S
J»
.M W
£ 2
-
o >
0=)
E w
If
IE
It
u- CO
O i.
to-2
0-5
J2
co
O
O
5
'5.
ra
O
II
5|
o "o
O (O
Q.
ra
O
3 «
.00
ra
|
is
<0
to
v>
£
Q.
S*j
M
ra o
m o
CO
a:
o
I
CM
CO
- V*l
§-
S-H
s4
Is
I»
E
CO
o
o
o
cT
co
to
E
iq
CM
to
t=
_g
E
iq
c\i
O
O
O
O
8
o
w"
c
_g
in
CO
TJ
O
U]
CO
ca o
m co
0
0
E
M-
CO
.> CO
15-9
E fe
.>.
j=
.2"
I
ro
o
(U
•a
0)
73
o
2
CO
T3
S
'm
o
o
£
a>
•D
T5
c
CO
ra
c
'c
E
3 —
fl
O
8H
li
co 9-
»'o-
J cj
So
3«
S8
g-=5
E -o
B ca
•SE Hpfes-f
t; r- r-1 *^
J f^ L— C- ^ -.-
l~ g o •- 3
N2 o o <2 'w
>TJ| o ° o «-o
ajOQ-coragc
ot;i-'-'-^Ln>
W « ^3 m
.1 o o o
10
o
o
CM
I
a>
co
o
CO
UJ
o
o
o
DQ
a.
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Potential Private and Public Benefits
To provide the necessary information for the overall private benefit-cost comparison, a
qualitative discussion of private benefits, including occupational health risks and safety
hazard considerations, is presented. While these benefits could not be monetized or even
quantified, they have the potential to directly affect a facility's costs and profits, and
should therefore be carefully considered in the decision-making process.
Public, or external, benefits are those that do not benefit the printer directly. For example,
an alternative that produces less air pollution results in both private and public benefits:
the printer pays for fewer raw materials and society in general benefits from better air.
The potential external benefits associated with the use of an alternative ink system include
reduced health risk for the general public, reduced ecological risk, and reduced use of
energy and natural resources.
Private Benefits
Performance Related Benefits
In addition to costs, performance is generally of greatest importance to any business
operating in a competitive market. Performance is closely linked to the quality and
appearance of the delivered product. In general, performance improvements lead to
increased product revenues, and performance shortcomings lead to decreased customer
satisfaction and revenues.
The CTSA assessed performance with 18 standard tests (see Chapter 4: Performance).
Five of these tests were selected as summary performance tests based on their importance
and quantifiability (see Section 8.1, Table 8.3). Average performance demonstration
results of Alternative #1 (water-based inks) in the five summary tests were close to, but
lower than, those of the baseline (solvent-based inks). The average performance results
of the developing technology (UV-cured inks) were also close to, but lower than, the
baseline in four of five tests. However, it is important to note that performance results of
individual product lines and formulations varied considerably, so that there is substantial
overlap in the performance range of the three systems. This indicates that flexographers
may be able to achieve many of the performance parameters needed for their products
from any of the three systems. The variation in performance by demonstration site also
underscores the need to optimize ink performance (via formulation and equipment
selection as well as the use of press side solvents and additives) with all systems.
Ideally, flexographers would always choose the best-performing ink system with the lowest
cost. However, this CTSA indicates that there may be some cost-performance tradeoffs.
Lower-cost systems and formulations may yield lower performance. Alternatively, the
CTSA indicates that printers may want to consider using systems and formulations with
equal or better performance and higher costs if those higher costs are accompanied by
environmental benefits. Three examples of private environmental benefits in the CTSA
are discussed below — reduced occupational health risk, reduced safety hazards and
regulatory costs, and reduced energy use.
Occupational Health Risk
Occupational health risk refers to any health impairments that may result from the
workers' exposure to hazardous chemicals. Improved occupational health may have
several tangible benefits to the facility: it may lead to fewer sick days, improved worker
satisfaction, improved worker productivity, and reduced insurance or compensation costs.
In the context of this CTSA, occupational health risk refers to press room workers subject;
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-31
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
to dermal and inhalation exposure and prep room workers subject to dermal exposure of
hazardous chemicals contained in the various ink formulations.
Table 8.4 in Section 8.1 presents a range of chemicals of concern for each product line
used in the performance demonstrations. The average number of chemicals with clear
SAT occupational risk associated with both Alternative 1 (1 to 4 chemicals) and the new
developing technology (1 to 5 chemicals) was slightly lower th\an that of the baseline (2
to 4 chemicals). This CTSA uses the number of chemicals with occupational concern as
an indication of the potential risk to press room workers. However, other factors, such
as the concentration of chemicals of concern, also play an important role in assessing
occupational health risks.
Lower risk to workers may have a number of monetary benefits for the printer: Reduced
health risk may lead to reduced illnesses by the facility's workers, which positively
influences the facility's productivity. In addition, better worker health is also likely to
increase worker satisfaction (or decrease worker dissatisfaction), which can also influence
worker productivity. A less hazardous working environment may also lead to lower health
insurance premiums, part of which the facility may pay, and reduced workers
compensation expenditures.
Safety Hazard and Regulatory Costs
Additional private benefits of reducing the number of chemicals of concern may be
realized from reduced safety hazards at the facility and reduced regulatory compliance
requirements. Safety hazards associated with flexographic inks include reactivity,
flammability, and ignitability. Improved chemical characteristics with respect to these
hazards may lead to a reduction in the insurance premiums paid by the printer, as well as
a potential reduction in waste disposal and storage costs. In addition, by switching away
from hazardous chemicals, a facility may be able to avoid certain regulatory and reporting
requirements associated with hazardous materials. Similarly, a reduction in reporting and
regulatory requirements would also produce public benefits for government, and therefore
taxpayers. These benefits may stem from permit writers having to issue permits to fewer
facilities or for a reduced number of chemicals, or less enforcement actions being
required.
Table 8.5 in Section 8.1 summarizes safety hazard results for the three ink systems. Of
the three ink systems, only solvent-based inks pose ignitability concerns, resulting in a
greater safety hazard. Data were incomplete for reactivity and flammability characteristics
of UV inks. The water-based ink technology compared favorably to the solvent-based
technology in terms of flammability (a range of 0 to 3 compared to 3 for solvent based
inks), while no difference in reactivity was observed between the two systems (both
showed zero reactivity).
Energy Use
Energy use is another direct cost of production to the printing facility. Employing more
energy efficient technologies may benefit a printer by reducing production costs as well
as improving the facility's public image. With increasing environmental consciousness by
the public, facilities using environmentally friendly production technologies may be able
to create considerable goodwill in their communities and take advantage of advertising
opportunities in addition to providing benefits to the environment and society as a whole.
The energy used by each ink system is expressed in terms of the number of British thermal
units (Btu) used to produce 6,000 square feet of image. Table 8.3 in Section 8.1 shows
that waters-based inks and UV inks use less energy than solvent-based inks, with averages
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-32
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
of 73,000 and 78,000 Btu, respectively, compared to 100,000 Btu used bj the solvent-
based ink technology. This reduced energy use may result in private and/Ocial benefits,
as discussed above. 7 "•' - —
All things equal, choosing an ink technology that uses less energy, during" the printing
process will have public benefits as well as private benefits. A reduction in energy use
conserves natural resources, a benefit to society as a whole and future generations.
However, it is interesting to note that the environmental impacts of energy use (and
therefore public benefits) differ by energy source. For example, natural gas is relatively
clean-burning compared to some sources of electricity, such as high-sulfufeoal. Thus the
public benefit of switching to a more energy-efficient process" may Be decreased if that
switch entails a fuel source change from gas to coal-derived electricity;
Public Benefits ' •
Public Health Risk
A reduction in the number of chemicals of concern not only presents private benefits to
the printer but may also produce several public benefits. Society may benefit from
reductions in air releases from the printing facility, which can lead to such health effects
as asthma, red eyes, nausea, or headaches.3 When present, these .health effects can lead
to sick days among the general public and workers living near the facility, and cause
absenteeism at those workers' place of employment. A reduction in air emissions may also
lead to a reduction in private and public health care costs. . ,-;
Table 8.5 in Section 8.1 summarizes smog-related emissions associated with the different
product lines. The table shows that at the assumed capture efficiency of 70%, solvent-
based emissions of smog-related compounds from ink and energy sources;are considerably
higher than those from the other two systems. Solvent-based emissions ranged from 757
to 1070 g/6,000 ft2. In contrast, water-based inks ranged from 173 to 313 g/6,000 ft2, and
UV-cured inks ranged from 187 to 523 g/6,000 ft2. Table 8.5 also compares the product
lines tested for the three ink systems in terms of VOC and HAP content. No HAP content
was measured for solvent-based and UV-cured inks, whereas the HAP content for water-
based inks ranged from 0 to 3.4% by weight. UV-cured inks have the lowest calculated
VOC content, with 1 % reported for each of the three tested product lines. The VOC
content for water-based inks ranges from 1 to 14% by weight, while solvent-based inks
record a range of 54 to 67%. •
In addition to air emissions, there is a potential for chronic general population exposure
via other pathways (e.g., drinking water, fish ingestion, etc.), or acute short-term
exposures to high levels of hazardous chemicals when there is a spill, fire, or other one-
time release. Again, these potential risks are reduced when the number of chemicals of
concern used at a facility is lowered.
Partially because of the chemical diversity of ink formulations within each system,
potential public health benefits from a switch hi ink technologies could not be quantified
for this CTSA. However, some general examples can illustrate the potential economic
impacts that less exposure to hazardous chemicals may have. Table 8.10 presents
estimates of the economic costs of some of the illnesses or symptoms associated with
exposure to fiexographic printing chemicals. To the extent that flexographic printing
chemicals are not the only factor contributing to the illnesses described, individual costs
a Asthma, red eyes, and headaches have been associated with ozone, a product of VOCs released from inks
and from energy production. Lung and neurotoxic effects, which may include asthma and headaches,
respectively, have been associated with compounds of possible general population risk.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-33
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
may overestimate the potential benefits to society from substituting alternative ink
technologies for the baseline ink system. In addition, if an alternative ink system contains
some of the same chemicals, the full economic benefit may not be realized.
Eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and aggravation of previously existing respiratory
problems are effects associated with ozone (derived from VOCs in inks or released during
energy production) or with individual compounds of possible general population risk. The
economic literature provides estimates of the costs associated with eye irritation,
headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks. An analysis by Unsworth and Neumann
summarizes the existing literature on the cost of illness based on estimates of how much
an individual would be willing to pay to avoid certain acute effects for one symptom day.3
These estimates are based upon a survey approach designed to elicit estimates of individual
willingness-to-pay to avoid a single-day incidence of the illness. They do not reflect the
lifetime costs of treating the disease.
Table 8.9 presents a summary of the low, mid-range, and high estimates of individual
willingness-to-pay to avoid eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma attacks. These
estimates provide an indication of the benefit per affected individual that would accrue to
society if switching to a substitute ink technology reduced the incidence of these health
endpoints.
Table 8.9 Estimated Willingness-to-Pay to Avoid Morbidity Effects for
One Symptom Day (1995 dollars)
Health Endpoint
Eye Irritation4
Headache5
Nausea6
^^sthma Attack7
Low
$21
$2
$29
$16
Mid-Range
$21
$13
$29
$43
High
$46
$67
$84
$71
Ecological Risk
A potential ecological benefit of using ink formulations with fewer hazardous chemicals
is reduced aquatic toxicity and less hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of in the
community. Aquatic toxicity can negatively affect fish populations near the points of
discharge and lead to a reduction in the variety of fish species (particularly species
intolerant of environmental stressors) or a reduction in the size of fish populations. Such
impacts on fish populations can impair recreational and commercial fishing opportunities.
An ink system that results hi the discharge of fewer chemicals of concern to aquatic
populations could therefore lead to direct economic benefits in the communities
surrounding the facility.
Summary of Social Benefit-Cost Assessment
The following sections present a summary of each of the three ink system technologies
across the benefit and cost categories discussed in this chapter.
Solvent-based Inks
• The solvent-based ink system, on average, had lower total operating costs than
UV-cured inks, but higher than water-based ink systems. This higher cost can be
attributed mostly to higher material and capital costs of solvent-based technologies.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-34
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
•\
In particular, average material costs for solvent-based systems (per 6,000 square
feet of image) were approximately $5.00 higher than those for water-based
.systems.
• In the performance area, the solvent-based system on average outperformed both
water-based and UV-cured systems. This system was the best with respect to
gloss and trap and among the best on the other three summary performance tests.
• On average, solvent-based inks contained two to four chemicals of clear
occupational risk, slightly higher than the ranges for water-based and UV-cured
inks. This may indicate a higher occupational risk.
• Public health risk was evaluated through releases of smog-related compounds,
VOC and HAP content, and the systemic and developmental risks to the general
population. Despite the fact that this system used oxidizers, emissions were
calculated to be considerably higher than the emissions of the other systems. VOC
content was, as expected, much higher than either of the two other systems. This
system did not contain any HAPs. For general population risks, two chemical
categories in Solvent #2 presented a possible risk.
• In terms of process safety, solvent-based inks had more concerns than the other
systems, although the results for UV-cured inks were incomplete. Only solvent-
based inks presented an ignitability concern and also presented a higher
flammability concern than water-based inks.
• Solvent-based inks were shown to use more energy to produce the same square
footage of image.
Water-based Inks
• Operating costs were lowest for the water-based ink product lines. In fact, in all
cost categories, water-based ink systems had the lowest average cost. Cost
savings were particularly pronounced for material costs.
• Though water-based ink formulations #2 and #4 had the best mottle scores of all
product lines, overall the water-based inks did not perform as well as the solvent-
based inks in the five summary performance categories. The system also was
outperformed by the UV-cured inks in three categories. While this may indicate
a lower quality product, it is important to note that in many cases the differences
were small and may be insignificant.
• In the occupational health area, water-based inks presented a lower average
number of chemicals clear or clear SAT risk per product line, indicating a better
chance of reducing occupational health risks compared to the baseline.
• The amount of smog-related emissions that resulted from ink releases and energy
production with the water-based system was considerably lower than that from
solvent-based system, and was comparable to that from the UV-cured system.
Water-based inks had a much lower VOC content than solvent-based inks, but
were the only inks that contained HAPs.
• Like with solvent-based inks, printers often add VOC solvents and additives at
press side to water-based inks. In substantial amounts, these materials compromise
the low-VOC content of the ink and can pose clear pressroom worker risks. At
one site using water-based inks (Site 3), over half of the emissions resulted from
materials added at press-side.
• The safety of water-based inks was better than that of solvent-based inks. There
was no indication of ignitability or reactivity. However, water-based inks had a
higher flammability risk than UV-cured inks.
• As for energy expenditures, water-based inks had the lowest average energy use.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-35
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
UV-cured Inks
• The UV-cured inks had the highest average operating costs. However, since it is
a new developing technology for wide-web film, these costs are likely to fall as
the technology develops. The biggest cost differential was the material costs,
falling approximately $8.00 per 6,000 ft2 of image above the average costs for
water-based inks. It is also worth noting that energy costs of the UV systems were
considerably higher — nearly two times the cost for solvent-based inks and nearly
three times the cost for water-based inks.
• The performance of the UV-cured inks was generally worse than the solvent-based
baseline, though this system had better blocking resistance, and individual product
lines had ice water crinkle and mottle results that were equal to the solvent-based
results. The performance results were slightly better than those of the water-based
inks.
• The UV-cured inks presented the lowest chance of occupational health risk, and
with respect to public health, had the lowest HAP and VOC contents. A couple
SAT-analyzed compounds may present a possible general population risk,
however, indicating that research on some compounds is needed.
• Safety hazard data were incomplete for UV inks. However, UV inks were the
only inks that present the potential for reactivity.
• Finally, the energy used by UV-cured systems was approximately 22% less than
that of the baseline, and was only slightly higher than that of the water-based inks.
The air releases associated with the energy production were higher than the
baseline, however, because all energy required by the UV system was derived
from electricity — a more pollution-intensive energy source in comparison to
natural gas.
The intent of this benefit-cost assessment is to illustrate the possible benefits and costs of
switching ink systems and to give individual printers insight into the potential social
benefits and costs of their current ink system. When drawing conclusions from the above
discussion in this chapter, it is important to note that many of the results are based on the
performance demonstrations conducted for this report. Printers may therefore find that
an individual facility will not experience similar results in some or all of the benefit-cost
categories. If a printer chooses to make a change in ink systems, it is important to
consider the specific needs and requirements of the facility and the printer's customers.
8.3 DECISION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Introduction
This CTSA presents comparative information on the relative risk, performance, costs, and
resource conservation of the three flexographic ink systems. However, it does not provide
recommendations or judgments about whether or not to implement an alternative. This
section may assist decision makers in choosing the most appropriate ink technology for
individual circumstances. There are three parts in this section:
The ink system comparison summarizes the findings of Sections 8.1 and 8.2 with respect
to solvent-based, water-based, and UV-cured inks. By integrating the findings of the first
section and the practical benefits and costs described in the second, this comparison
describes the anticipated impacts of each system based on the findings of the research in
this CTSA.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-36
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
After an ink system is selected, it is necessary to select specific formulations. The
chemical categories section presents the hazard, risk, and regulatory characteristics of the
groups of chemicals in this CTSA. This section may be useful for printers and ink
formulators alike who wish to identify chemicals that should be avoided or that are
potentially safer substitutes for harmful ingredients.
The final section, suggestions for improvements, summarizes the steps that can be taken
by printers and ink companies to minimize the health and environmental risks of inks and
considerations for selecting the best ink formulations for a facility.
Ink System Comparison
As indicated in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the results did not identify any one ink system as a
best choice for all situations. This section discusses the relative benefits and drawbacks
that were found with each system.
Baseline: Solvent-based inks
The solvent-based inks were the baseline for this analysis, and they displayed solid
performance characteristics and reasonable costs — two factors of primary concern to
many decision makers. However, the analysis indicated that they fared poorly on other
factors, such as health risks, safety hazards, regulatory costs, and energy use.
The strength of the solvent-based inks in this CTSA was performance. On average, this
system produced the best performance results on four of the five tests discussed in this
chapter. The results indicated that these particular inks may be the most appropriate for
particularly challenging printing tasks, such when process colors must be matched
precisely or when the product is intended for use in cold, wet conditions.
Health risks, safety hazards, regulatory costs, and energy use generally were negative
aspects of the solvent-based inks. As indicated in Table 8.4, solvent-based inks had the
highest average number of chemicals of clear worker risk per formulation (3.2). Most of
the chemicals of clear risk were solvents, with some of those added at press side. The
solvent-based inks had the highest VOC content— an average of 58% by weight. This
directly affected the emissions rate of smog-related compounds — the average rate (914
g/6,000 ft2) was more than three times the average rate for water-based and UV-cured
systems (221 and 300 g/6,000 ft2, respectively) at the assumed capture efficiency rate.
The solvent-based inks were the only formulations that were classified as ignitable, and
they also had a relatively high flammability rating of 3 (on a scale of 0-4).
Under the operating parameters assumed for this analysis, the high health risk and safety
hazard indicators suggest that these solvent-based inks may result in costs to the firm in
the form of more worker sick days, decreased worker satisfaction, decreased worker
productivity, and increased insurance premiums. These costs would result in lower
profits. Possible social impacts of solvent-based inks include increased sick days among
the general public and an increase in health care costs. The flammability and ignitability
of the formulations may require more effort to comply with environmental and fire
regulations, thereby increasing waste disposal and storage costs. (Note, however, that
solvent-based waste can be incinerated for energy recovery or distilled for reuse. Either
of these practices may reduce waste disposal costs.) Finally, because oxidizers are
required when using solvent-based inks, energy use was the highest for this system. The
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-37
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
emissions associated with this energy consumption, however, were comparable to those
of the other two systems, because much of the energy was derived from relatively clean-
burning natural gas.
As shown in Table 8.6, the average operating cost of the solvent-based inks ($32.98 per
6,000 ft2) was higher than that of the water-based inks ($26.60 per 6,000 ft2), but lower
than that of the UV-cured inks ($36.82 per 6,000 ft2). Costs were increased by the use of
an oxidizer and the high ink consumption rate but were moderated by the relatively low
per-pound price of ink.
Alternative #1: Water-based inks
The water-based inks that were evaluated had both private advantages and disadvantages;
however, the social impacts of water-based inks appear to be of less concern in comparison
to the solvent baseline.
This ink system had inconsistent performance test results. Though some individual test
results were better than the baseline, the average outcome of the water-based inks for each
test was poorer than that of the solvent-based inks. Such a decrease in quality may either
prevent printers from switching technologies or may require them to take steps to improve
the quality. Two water-based product lines had better mottle results than the baseline, and
in general the gloss and blocking were comparable to the solvent-based inks. Under
conditions where the product is subjected to minimal physical demands, the visual
characteristics of water-based inks, may be similar to those of solvent-based inks.
However, if the ink were to be exposed to cold or wet conditions — like those measured
by the ice water crinkle test — these product lines may compare unfavorably to solvent-
based inks or may require modifications.
By some measures, a switch to water-based inks may yield both private and social benefits
with respect to health risks and safety hazards. In terms of safety hazards, none of the inks
were ignitable or reactive. The flammability of the water-based inks ranged from 0-3, in
contrast to solvent-based inks which were all rated 3. The VOC content was an average
of 6 % by weight, compared to the concentration of nearly 60 % in solvent-based inks. For
inks with low flammability and VOC content, improvements may be seen in lower
insurance premiums, worker's compensation expenditures, and regulatory costs compared
to those for the baseline. From a social perspective, a reduction of VOC emissions may
have impacts beyond the printing facility, possibly including a reduction in cases of
asthma, red eyes, and headaches. The economic benefit of avoiding additional cases of
these ailments potentially could include reduced medical expenditures, increased
productivity, and reduced pain and suffering.
Other health risk and safety measures indicated that the water-based inks may have been
comparable to or worse than the baseline. There was an average of 3.1 compounds of
clear or moderate worker health risk in the water-based inks, which was close to the 3.2
found hi the solvent-based inks. Some of this risk — one compound of clear concern per
formulation on average — resulted from the press-side addition of solvent and additives.
Three of the four water-based ink product lines contained HAPs, while none were found
in the other two systems. The variability of health risks and safety hazards of these water-
based inks relative to the baseline highlights the importance of carefully scrutinizing
information about particular formulations.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-38
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Benefits associated with a switch to the water-based inks in this analysis also include a
decrease hi energy use and costs. The system used approximately 73,000 Btu per ft2 of
image — the lowest among the ink systems and 27% less than the solvent-based inks.
Private benefits of reduced energy use include reductions in the cost of energy. Social
benefits include lower emissions at the sources of energy generation (i.e., electric power
plants and the exhaust stack of natural gas furnaces), reduced demand for fossil fuels, and
decreased strain on the capacity of the power grid.
The cost of using the water-based inks also was lower. This system was, on average,
$6.40 less expensive than the baseline per 6,000 ft2 of image. The lower cost resulting
from a switch to these water-based inks has obvious benefits for a printer's profitability,
and also may result in benefits to the public in the form of lower prices for printed
products. When considering a switch from the baseline to a water-based ink system,
additional costs for the retraining of workers would be incurred. These costs should be
taken into account in the overall decision.
New Emerging Technology: UV-cured Inks
Research in this CTSA indicated that a switch to the tested UV-cured inks may present
higher private costs in comparison to the baseline, because of lower performance and
higher operating costs. It is worth noting that developing technologies often have higher
operating costs. However, performance shortcomings indicate there is room to improve
UV-cured formulations and to optimize UV equipment for wide-web film applications.
The performance results for the UV-cured inks were mixed. They performed better than
the baseline on one test (blocking resistance), but produced mostly poorer results on the
other tests. These results indicate that UV-cured inks may be an appropriate choice for
certain film applications that require pressure and heat resistance, but that a UV system
may require modifications, such as different-sized anilox rolls, to improve other
performance characteristics. The performance of these inks may represent a cost to
printers who are switching in that either a lower quality product is produced or that
significant effort is required to improve the quality. Lower quality products affect
consumers in that printed products, such as packaging, may have less realistic colors and
lower durability.
These inks showed potential for greater social benefits arising from reduced health risks
and safety hazards, An average of 2.4 compounds of clear or moderate occupational risk
concern were found in the UV formulations, which was lower than the average for the
baseline. There were no HAPs in the formulations, and based on post-curing estimates,
the system had a VOC content below 1 %. Safety hazard information was incomplete, but
the formulations for which information was available had a reactivity level of 1, a
flammability of 1 (both on 0-4 scales of increasing severity), and no ignitability. UV-
cured product lines #1 and #3 were calculated to have smog-related emissions of 187 and
191 g/6,000 ft2 of product, respectively (based on the uncured formulations). These were
the lowest emission rates of all product lines in the three systems. In contrast to these
relatively low figures, however, UV-cured ink #2 had VOC emissions expected to be 523
g/6,000 ft2. The benefits of switching to a UV-cured ink, therefore, may be formulation-
specific. It should be noted that many compounds used in UV-cured inks have not been
subjected to toxicological studies. As a result, conclusions about the risks associated with
these inks can not be as certain as conclusions based primarily on toxicological
information.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-39
September 200Q
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
The UV-cured inks consumed less energy (78,000 Btu per 6,000 ft2) than the solvent
baseline (100,000 Btu per 6,000 ft2), but more than the water-based inks (73,000 Btu per
6,000 ft2). As indicated in Table 8.5, the releases of smog-related compounds associated
with UV-cured energy consumption were the greatest among those of the three ink
systems, because electricity — the sole form of energy used by the UV system — is more
pollution-intensive than natural gas. This pollution is not evident at the facility, however,
because the emissions are released at the site of the power plant.
The UV-cured inks had the lowest ink consumption rate of the three systems. An average
of 2.78 pounds of UV-cured ink and additives were consumed per 6,000 ft2 of image; in
contrast, the water-based system consumed 4.57 pounds of ink and additives per 6,000 ft2,
and solvent-based inks consumed 8.11 pounds per 6,000 ft2.
With regard to costs, the UV ink system was the most expensive of the three, costing
approximately $3.80 per 6,000 ft2 of image more than the solvent baseline and $10 more
than the water based system. Two factors drove this high cost. The per-pound ink price
was the highest of the three ink systems. One reason for this is that higher-grade pigments
are required in order to minimize product performance issues.8 Another factor is that the
system exclusively uses electricity, which is more expensive than natural gas. A switch
to these UV-cured inks could result in a private cost to printers, and may negatively affect
consumers, because the cost might be translated into higher prices for materials printed
with UV-cured inks.
Summary
No ink system is inherently free of human health risks and safety hazards. There are many
tradeoffs in every system. Many solvent-based inks have undergone technical
reformulating in recent years to reduce the use of some of the more hazardous substances.
Also, printers using solvent systems are required to use oxidizers, which can substantially
reduce VOC air emissions from these inks. (Oxidizers do not, however, protect
pressroom workers from the effects of solvents.) UV inks, because they are much newer,
contain many more untested chemicals, and the risks of exposure to many of them are
largely unknown. Water-based inks gained popularity initially in part because they were
thought to be safer than solvent inks.
However, as shown by this CTSA, the relative occupational risk reductions are
formulation-specific. Some water-based inks do potentially pose a lower risk than some
solvent-based inks. There were fewer chemicals of clear worker health risk in some
formulations, and water-based ink #2 did not contain compounds with clear developmental
risks. This was not true for water-based ink #4, however; the range in the number of
chemicals of clear occupational risk was slightly higher than the baseline, and this product
line had a VOC content of 14% by weight. For a water-based ink, it is important to keep
the VOC content as low as possible since no emission controls are used with these inks.
Another issue that emerged from the results are that press side solvents and additives can
increase the risk to workers using ink. In both solvent-based and water-based inks, some
solvents and additives added at press side presented a clear occupational risk. In water-
based inks in particular, a third of the chemicals of clear concern were added at press side.
This point highlights both the risks associated with working with press side solvents and
additives and the worker health improvements that can be made by minimizing their use.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-40
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Highlights of Chemical Category Information
As noted in earlier sections of this chapter, there can be significant variation in the risks
of different ink product lines, even within one ink system. The risk associated with a
formulation often can be driven by just a few individual compounds. This section includes
information about the hazard, risk, and regulatory information for each compound used
in this CTSA, grouped by chemical category. This information may be helpful for printers
who wish to identify compounds that may present issues for human health and the
environment. Ink formulators may use this information to help identify chemical
compounds that contribute to the overall risk of a formulation, as well as compounds that
are worth considering as possible safer alternatives.
This section presents an overview and interpretation of the hazard, risk, and regulatory
information. The following section — Hazard, Risk, and Regulation of CTSA Chemicals
— consists of a more detailed description of each chemical category.
Hazard and risk
Hazard represents a compound's inherent ability to cause harm to health, that is,
regardless of its concentration in an ink. Risk describes the relationship between a
compound's hazard level and its potential for exposure. Because potential for exposure
is a factor of the compound's concentration in the ink as well as its chemical properties,
the concentration of a chemical in a formulation affects its risk. As shown in Table 8.13
in the next section, a chemical can have a low hazard score and a high risk score if the
chemical is used in fairly high concentrations in an ink formulation. Thus, it is not
necessarily true that pressroom workers can be safely exposed to inks even if they do not
contain any highly hazardous chemicals.
The reverse may also be true. A chemical with a high hazard score can receive a low risk
score because it has a very small concentration hi the ink that was tested for the CTSA.
That does not indicate, however, that the chemical is safe in all ink formulations. If the
same chemical had been present in a high concentration in another formulation, it might
have received a high risk score as well. Thus, it is important to pay close attention to both
hazard and risk when this information is available.
It is also important to consider aquatic risk. Though it was assumed in this CTSA that ink
would not be released to the aquatic environment, accidental releases are possible. As
noted in Chapter 3 (Risk), 18 of the compounds were of high hazard concern for aquatic
effects, and another 35 were of medium hazard concern. The aquatic hazard of
ingredients should considered in order to minimize the impacts associated with potential
discharges of ink.
Toxicological and SAT data
Ideally, a chemical's ability to cause harm in animals and humans is measured by
toxicological studies. However, less than half of the compounds used in this CTSA have
been subject to toxicological testing. (This situation is generally true beyond the inks that
were used in this CTSA. Many hundreds of new chemicals enter the market each year,
and testing has not kept up with these advances.) For CTSA chemicals with no
toxicological data, EPA's Structure Activity Team (SAT) estimated toxicity based on the
compound's molecular structure and its similarity to compounds that have been studied.
SAT findings, although developed by experts and far better than no information, are
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-41
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
inherently less reliable than toxicological studies, because they are not based upon actual
tests of the chemical in question.
It is important, therefore, to know more about chemicals for which no toxicological data
are available. As discussed in the hazard and risk section, a chemical with a low SAT risk
concern may in fact be present in a particular formulation in a high enough concentration
to be a worker health issue.
Exposure via dermal and inhalation routes
Flexographic workers can come into contact with all chemical compounds in ink
formulations through dermal (skin) exposure, particularly if they do not consistently wear
contact-barrier gloves while working with or in the immediate vicinity of inks. In contrast,
workers are only subject to inhalation exposure from compounds that are volatile (have a
vapor pressure at ambient temperatures). For compounds in this CTSA that did not have
a significant vapor pressure (0.001 mm Hg or greater), their inhalation risk is noted as "no
exposure."
Fifteen chemicals that were tested in the CTSA presented a clear dermal risk, and eleven
others had a possible dermal risk, documented with toxicological data. These chemicals
spanned all ink systems, and a number of them are not explicitly regulated under any
federal acts included in the table. SAT findings indicate that many other chemicals may
also be of concern for dermal exposure. This finding indicates that flexographic workers
can come into skin contact with multiple chemicals that carry significant health and safety
risks. The compounds that presented clear risk as determined by toxicological data or the
SAT are presented in Table 8.10.
Dermal exposure can be avoided mostly thorough implementation of a policy that requires
workers to wear contact-barrier gloves while working with ink (and other chemicals),
whether or not they expect to contact the ink directly. Butyl (preferred) and nitrile gloves
are considered appropriate for inks. Latex gloves offer little or no protection because they
degrade rapidly after being exposed to many ink chemicals.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-42
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.10 Compounds of Clear Dermal Risk
Chemical Category
Acrylated polyols
Acrylated polymers
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Inorganics
Organophosphorous compounds
Organotitanium compounds
Pigments — organic
Pigments — organometallic
Chemical
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
1 ,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
Ethanol
Isopropanol
Butyl acetate
Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Ethanolamine
Hydroxylamine derivative
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary,
ethoxylated
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
Barium
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-
dimethoxybenzoyl) (2,4,4-
trimethylpentyl)-
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis
(acetylacetonate)
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-
pentanedionate)
Titanium isopropoxide
C.I. Pigment Red 23
D&C Red No. 7
Data Source
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
For inhalation risk, twelve chemicals showed a clear inhalation risk to pressroom workers
based on toxicological data. SAT findings indicate that three more chemicals present a
clear inhalation risk. These chemicals are listed in Table 8.11.
It is much more difficult to protect pressroom workers from inhalation exposure to ink
chemicals than from dermal exposure. This is of particular concern for chemicals that
have a clear or possible inhalation risk from toxicological studies, as well as those of
moderate to high inhalation risk via SAT findings. Inhalation exposure can be minimized,
however, by using enclosed doctor blades and providing sufficient ventilation.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-43
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.11 Compounds of Clear Inhalation Risk
Chemical Category
Chemical
Data Source
Acrylated-polyols '
Alcohols
Alkyl acetates
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
Ethylene glycol ethers
Hydrocarbons — low molecular
weight
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
1 ,6-Hexanediol diacrylate
Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Ethanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Butyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
' Ammonia
Ammonium hydroxide
Ethanolamine
Hydroxylamine derivative
Butyl carbitol
Ethyl carbitol
n-Heptane
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
.SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Regulatory status
Some of the compounds in this CTSA are regulated under major federal environment,
health and safely acts. The following federal regulations were considered:
• Clean Air Act (CAA)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)
Table 8.13 shows the regulation (last column) for each explicitly regulated compound. In
addition, chemicals that appear to be "unregulated" in fact may be regulated due to their
properties; for example, many compounds are regulated as VOCs because they match the
definition (all organic compounds except those that are determined by EPA to be negligibly
photochemically reactive).
Of the more than 100 chemicals studied hi this CTSA, only 25% are explicitly regulated
by any of the major federal environmental and health acts. Of the roughly 75 other
compounds, 11 presented a clear occupational risk and another 36 presented possible
occupational risk. Table 8.12 presents the compounds that posed a clear or possible
occupational risk based on either* toxicological data or SAT evaluations that are not
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-44
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
explicitly listed in regulations. The large number of compounds not explicitly regulated
that were of clear or possible risk concern indicates that at least for the flexographic inks
studied in this analysis, significant risk may be present in a formulation despite a lack of
regulatory requirements.
Table 8.12 Compounds of Clear or Possible Occupational Risk Not Explicitly
Regulated8
Chemical
C.I. Pigment Red 23
D&C Red No. 7
Glycerol propoxylate triacrylate
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)
(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)-
Trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated
Dipropylene glycol diacrylate
Hydroxylamine derivative
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis (acetylacetonate)
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-
pentanedionate)
Titanium isopropoxide
C.I. Pigment Green 7
Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine
oxide
Distillates (petroleum), solvent-refined light
paraffinic
2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone
2-Methyl-4'-(methylthio)-2-
morpholinopropiophenone
Propylene glycol propyl ether
Acrylated epoxy polymer
Acrylated oligoamine polymer
Acrylated polyester polymer (#s 1 and 2)
Acrylic acid polymer, insoluble
Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate polymer
C.I. Basic Violet 1 , molybdatephosphate
C.I. Basic Violet 1,
molybdatetungstatephosphate
C.I. Pigment Red 48, barium salt (1:1)
C.I: Pigment Red 48, calcium salt (1:1) ,
C.I. Pigment Red 52, calcium salt (1:1)
Data
Source
ox
ox
ox
ox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
Tox
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Dermal Risk
Level
lear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible .
Possible
Possible
Level
.e.
.e.
.e.
.e.
.e.
.e.
Clear
Clear
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Possible
Possible
n.e.
Possible
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-45
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Table 8.12 Compounds of Clear or Possible Occupational Risk Not Explicitly
Regulated (continued)
Chemical
C.I. Pigment Violet 27
C.I. Pigment White 7
C.I. Pigment Yellow 14
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
Ethoxylated tetramethyldecyndiol
Methylenedisalicylic acid
Nitrocellulose
Paraffin wax
Polyethylene glycol
Propyl acetate
Rosin, polymerized
Siloxanes and silicones, di-Me, 3-
hydroxypropyl Me, ethers with polyethylene
glycol acetate
Silanamine,1,1,1 -trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-,
hydrolysis products with silica
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic
Styrene acrylic acid polymer (#s 1 and 2)
Styrene acrylic acid resin
Thioxanthone derivative
rrimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate
rrimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate
Data
Source
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
SAT
Dermal Risk
Level
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Dossible
Possible
Possible
Possible
3ossible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Inhalation Risk
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Possible
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Possible
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
Possible
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.
n.e.: No exposure via indicated exposure route
• This list contains chemicals that are not explicitly listed under federal laws and regulations.
Chemicals in this list may be subject to general requirements, such as those that address VOCs.
Hazard, Risk and Regulation of Individual CTSA Chemicals
This section contains hazard, risk, and regulatory information for each compound used in
this CTSA. The intent of this section is to summarize the hazard and risk findings of the
CTSA for the decision maker. It is intended to be a starting point in the evaluation of a
chemical for use in new formulations. The data are presented in Table 8.13.
The hazard and risk information is presented separately for inhalation and dermal
exposure. For both exposure routes, hazard effects can be either systemic (affecting an
organ system of the body, such as the lungs) or developmental (associated with the growth
and maturation of an organism). The notation used in Table 8.13 allows presentation of
both systemic and developmental effects for each chemical category. The first letter that
appears in each human health hazard column of the table represents the concern for
systemic effects; the second represents the concern for developmental effects. For
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-46
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
example, the second compound in the table, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, has "M/L" under
Dermal Hazard. This indicates a moderate hazard of systemic effects, and a low hazard
of developmental effects.
Table 8.13 also includes the results of the risk analysis performed in this CTSA. Risk
incorporates a compound's hazard level and its potential for exposure to produce an
overall risk ranking. Dermal risk levels were determined based on model assumptions of
routine two-hand contact by workers in both the preparation room and the press room, and
are considered high-end estimates. Inhalation risks were expected only for press room
workers. Because potential for exposure depends on the compound's concentration in the
ink as well as its chemical properties, the risk rating of a chemical can vary among ink
formulations if its concentration is different. Table 8.13 lists the highest observed risk
rating.
The final column of Table 8.13, Regulatory Concern, lists the regulations under which
each compound is explicitly regulated. It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive list
of regulatory requirements associated with each compound.
The following paragraphs summarize the hazards and risks of the chemicals in each
chemical category. Though hazards and risks can vary among chemicals within a
category, there are trends in exposure pathways and the magnitudes of concern that can
be-useful to printers and formulators who use chemicals in these categories.
Aery lated polyols
Compounds in this category were used in UV-cured inks as monomers. Of the four
compounds, two (hydroxypropyl acrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate) have been
subjected to toxicological testing. Both had a medium hazard concern for systemic effects
via dermal exposure, and both were found hi the inks in sufficient quantities to present
clear risk via dermal exposure. Hydroxypropyl acrylate also posed a medium systemic
hazard concern and clear risk via inhalation. Trimethylolpropane triacrylate did not have
an appreciable vapor pressure and therefore did not pose a hazard or risk concern via
inhalation. Both of these compounds had a medium aquatic hazard level, but neither had
a cancer hazard rating.
The two compounds analyzed by the Structure Activity Team (SAT), dipropylene glycol
diacrylate and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, presented medium hazard and clear risk concern
by both dermal and inhalation exposure routes. The two compounds presented moderate
and high hazard levels, respectively, for aquatic effects, and both were expected to have
a low-moderate hazard level for carcinogenic effects.
Two compounds in this category, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate and hydroxypropyl acrylate,
are regulated under TSCA. In general, these compounds presented a clear occupational
risk concern but have not been well studied.
Aery lated polymers
These six compounds were used in UV-cured inks as monomers and polymers. One
compound, glycerol propoxylate triacrylate, was determined based on toxicological data
to have a medium systemic dermal hazard level, and because of its concentration in the
formulations, presented a clear dermal occupational risk. It also had a high aquatic hazard
level.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-47
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
For each of the other five compounds, the SAT found that they had a low-moderate dermal
hazard level and possible dermal occupational risk. No exposure via inhalation was
expected. Of these compounds, trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate had a high
aquatic hazard level, trimethylolpropane propoxylate triacrylate had a medium aquatic
hazard level, and the other three - acrylated epoxy polymer, acrylated ologoamine
polymer, and acrylated polyester polymer - had a low aquatic hazard level. All five of
the SAT-evaluated compounds had a low-moderate cancer hazard level.
Aside from those that qualify as VOCs, none of the compounds are regulated under the
federal regulations discussed in this report.
Acrylic acid polymers
Compounds in this category were used as oligomers in water-based inks. Four
compounds, acrylic acid-butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate styrene polymer, butyl
acrylate-methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate polymer, and acidic acrylic acid polymers
#1 and #2 were assigned low dermal hazard levels by the SAT and possible risk ratings.
The other four compounds were assigned low-moderate hazard ratings and possible
occupational risk ratings via dermal exposure by the SAT. Five of the compounds -
acidic acrylic acid polymers #1 and #2, styrene acrylic acid polymers #1 and #2, and
styrene acrylic resin — were assigned medium aquatic hazard ratings and the other three
compounds were assigned low ratings. None of the compounds were known to present a
cancer hazard, nor are they explicitly regulated under the federal regulations discussed in
this report.
Alcohols
Alcohols were used in all three ink systems as solvents. All except tetramethyldecyndiol
have received toxicological testing and had human health hazard and occupational risk
concern via both dermal and inhalation exposure. Most compounds presented only low
or medium hazard concern, but because of their typically high concentrations, their
occupational risk levels were higher. Three had a clear inhalation risk (et'hanol,
isobutanol, and isopropanol), and two had a clear dermal risk (ethanol and isopropanol)'
Tetramethyldecyndiol, as determined by the SAT, had a medium aquatic hazard level; the
other compounds had a low aquatic hazard level.
Ethanol has been assigned by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as
a Group 1 compound, indicating that it is carcinogenic to humans. Isopropanol has been
assigned as an IARC Group 3 compound, indicating that its characteristics with respect to
cancer are not classifiable. Propanol has been assigned as an EPA Group C compound,
indicating that it is a possible human carcinogen.
Three compounds hi this category have OSHA Personal Exposure Limits (PELs); for
ethanol, it is 1000 ppm, for isobutanol, it is 100 ppm, and for isopropanol, it is 400 p'pm.
Three compounds are regulated by TSCA, and RCRA, CERCLA, and EPCRA regulations
apply to one compound.
Alkyl acetates
The three compounds in this category were used as solvents in solvent-based inks. Butyl
acetate and ethyl acetate have been subjected to toxicological testing. Like alcohols, they
had fairly low human health hazard levels, but their relatively high concentrations in'these
inks caused both compounds to have a clear occupational risk concern via inhalation
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-48
_
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
exposure. Butyl acetate also presented a clear occupational risk via dermal exposure.
Propyl acetate, which was studied by the SAT, was given low-moderate hazard and
possible risk concern levels via both exposure pathways. All three compounds presented
a medium aquatic hazard, and none were known to pose a cancer hazard.
Butyl and ethyl acetate are regulated under CERCLA, TSCA, and have OSHA PELs of
150 ppm and 400 ppm, respectively. In addition, butyl acetate is regulated under CWA
and ethyl acetate is regulated under RCRA.
Amides or nitrogenous compounds
This is a broad category, incorporating compounds serving a variety of functions in all ink
systems. Four compounds — ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, ethanolamine, and
hydroxylamine derivative — presented a clear occupational risk concern via both dermal
and inhalation exposure routes. Ethanolamine also presented a high human health hazard
for developmental effects by both exposure routes. In contrast, the other three compounds
presented low hazard and occupational risk levels. Two compounds — hydrogenated
tallow amides and ammonia — presented a high aquatic hazard, and three others —
ammonium hydroxide, ethanolamine, and hydroxylamine derivative—presented a medium
aquatic hazard concern. None of the compounds were known to present a cancer hazard.
Ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are subject to CWA, CERCLA, and EPCRA
requirements, and ammonia is also subject to CAA, SARA, TSCA and has an OSHA PEL
of 50 ppm. Ethanolamine has an OSHA PEL of 3 ppm, and urea is regulated under
TSCA.
Aromatic esters
This category was comprised of two compounds found in UV-cured inks. Dicyclohexyl
phthalate was an additive (a plasticizer) and ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate was a
photoinitiator. Dicyclohexyl phthalate has been subjected to toxicological testing and
presented a low concern for both human health hazard and occupational risk, but a high
concern for aquatic hazard. The other, ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate, was analyzed by
the SAT and was given a low-moderate human health hazard level and a possible risk level
for both dermal and inhalation pathways, a medium aquatic hazard level, and a low-
moderate cancer hazard level. Dicyclohexyl phthalate is regulated under CWA,
CERCLA, and TSCA.
Aromatic ketones
The seven compounds in this category were used as photoinitators in the UV-cured inks
of this CTSA. One compound, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, presented a moderate
hazard and possible risk via both inhalation and dermal exposure based on toxicological
data. For the other compounds, the concern was limited to dermal exposure. 2-methyl-4'-
(methylthio)-2-morpholinopropiophenone presented moderate hazard concern and possible
risk concern via dermal exposure based on toxicological data. The other compounds had
low human health hazard and low or possible dermal occupational risk concern. 2-
Isopropylthioxanthone, 4-isopropylthioxanthone and thioxanthone derivative were found
by the SAT to have a high aquatic hazard concern; three others had a medium aquatic
hazard concern. None of the compounds were known to present a cancer hazard or are
explicitly regulated under the federal regulations discussed in this document.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-49
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Ethylene glycol ethers
These compounds were used as solvents in water-based inks. Two compounds — butyl
carbitol and ethyl carbitol — present clear occupational risk concern via both dermal and
inhalation exposure based on toxicological data. The three other compounds were
analyzed by the SAT. Ethoxylated C11-C15 secondary alcohols was given a moderate
hazard level and clear occupational risk level via dermal exposure, and no inhalation
exposure was expected. The other two compounds, ethyoxylated tetramethyldecyndiol and
polyethylene glycol, were given moderate hazard levels and possible dermal occupational
risk levels. Ethoxylated Cl 1-C15 secondary alcohols presented a medium aquatic hazard;
all others had a low aquatic hazard level. None of the compounds were known to present
a cancer hazard.
Both butyl and ethyl carbitol are regulated under CAA, CERCLA, EPCRA, and TSCA.
Hydrocarbons —high molecular weight
The four compounds included in this category were used as additives in solvent- and
water-based inks. Based on toxicological data, solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates
and paraffin wax were found to pose a possible occupational risk level by dermal
exposure, and solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates also posed a possible occupational
risk by inhalation exposure. Hydrotreated light distillates were found by the SAT to
present a possible occupational risk by both dermal and inhalation exposure. Hydrotreated
light distillates and mineral oil both presented high aquatic hazard, and hydrotreated light
distillates and solvent-refined light paraffinic distillates have shown evidence of
carcinogeniciry in animals (but have not been evaluated formally by IARC or EPA).
Mineral oil has been assigned an OSHA PEL of 5 mg/rn3.
Hydrocarbons—low molecular weight
The three compounds included in this category were found "in solvent- and water-based
inks and performed different functions. Heptane, though it posed only a low hazard
concern for both dermal and inhalation exposure based on toxicological data, presented
a clear occupational risk .concern for inhalation, in part because of its greater concentration
in some formulations. In contrast, styrene posed a high concern for developmental effects
via inhalation based on toxicological data, but its relatively low concentration resulted in
just a rating of possible risk concern for inhalation effects. Light aliphatic solvent naphtha
was given a low-moderate hazard and possible occupational risk rating for both dermal and
inhalation exposure by the SAT. Heptane and styrene presented a high aquatic hazard
concern, and light aliphatic solvent naphtha presented a medium aquatic hazard. There
is evidence hi animals that styrene may be carcinogenic, but it has not been evaluated bv
IARC or EPA.
Two compounds are regulated under multiple federal acts. Heptane is regulated under
TSCA and has an OSHA PEL of 500 ppm. Styrene is regulated under CAA, CWA
SDWA, CERCLA, SARA, EPCRA, TSCA, and has an OSHA PEL of 100 ppm.
Inorganics
The compounds in this category perform a diverse set of functions in solvent- and water-
based inks and have all been subjected to toxicological testing. One of the compounds,
barium, is of particular concern. It had a high hazard concern for developmental effects
via dermal exposure, and had clear occupational dermal risk. The other two compounds,
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-50
September 2000
-------
CHAPTERS
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
kaolin and silica, had low human health hazard and occupational risk concern ratings, and
all three compounds had low aquatic hazard ratings. Two compounds may present a
cancer hazard: silica in its crystalline form is classified by IARC as a Group 1 compound
(carcinogenic to humans), and amorphous silica is classified as a Group 3 compound (not
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans); and kaolin has been reported to cause
cancer in animals but has not been evaluated formally.
Barium and kaolin have OSHA PELs of 0.5 mg/m3 and 15 mg/m3 (total dust),
respectively. Barium is also regulated under RCRA, SDWA, SARA, and EPCRA.
Olefin polymers
The two compounds in this category, polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene, were used
as additives (waxes) in solvent-based and UV-cured inks. Polytetrafluoroethylene
presented low dermal hazard and risk concern based on toxicological information.
Polyethylene was determined through SAT evaluation to have a low hazard and possible
dermal risk concern. Both have been studied by IARC for cancer hazards and found to
be Group 3 compounds (not classifiable). No inhalation exposure was expected from these
compounds, both presented a low aquatic hazard, and neither is explicitly regulated under
the federal acts discussed in this report.
Organic acids or salts
These compounds performed a variety of functions as additives in solvent- and water-based
inks. Citric acid, the only compound for which toxicological data were available,
presented low concern for human health hazard and occupational risk via dermal exposure.
The other two compounds, dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt and methylenedisalicylic
acid, were analyzed by the SAT and found to present low-moderate hazard and possible
risk concern via dermal exposure. All three presented a moderate aquatic hazard. None
of the compounds were expected to result in inhalation exposure, and none are explicitly
regulated under the federal acts discussed in the CTSA.
Organophosphorous compounds
The three compounds included in this category were used in solvent-based and UV-cured
inks as either plasticizers or initiators and have been subjected to toxicological testing.
One compound, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphine oxide, had
a moderate dermal hazard and clear occupational dermal risk concern. The other two,
diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide and 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate,
presented low and low-moderate dermal hazard concern, respectively, and possible
occupational risk by dermal exposure. 2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate presented a high
aquatic hazard and the other two presented a medium aquatic hazard. None of the
compounds were expected to result in inhalation exposure. One compound, 2-ethylhexyl
diphenyl phosphate, is regulated under TSCA.
Organotitanium compounds
These three compounds were used in solvent-based inks as additives (adhesion promoters).
Each was studied by the SAT and found to have medium human health hazard and clear
occupational risk levels for dermal exposure. Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis
(acetylacetonate) and titanium diisopropoxide bis (2,4-pentanedionate) presented a medium
aquatic hazard concern. Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis (acetylacetonate) also presented a
low-moderate cancer hazard concern. Inhalation exposure was not expected from any of
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-51
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
the compounds. None of the compounds are explicitly regulated under the federal
regulations discussed in this document.
Pigments —inorganic
This category was comprised of two chemicals and was seen in all three ink systems. C.I.
Pigment White 6 had a low dermal hazard rating but a possible dermal risk rating based
on toxicological data. C.I. Pigment White 7 was analyzed by the SAT and found to have
a low-moderate hazard and possible risk ranking for dermal exposure. Both compounds
had a low aquatic hazard rating, but C.I. Pigment White 6 has displayed evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals. Inhalation exposure was not expected from either of the
compounds. C.I. Pigment White 6 has an OSHA PEL of 15 mg/m3 (total dust).
Pigments —organic
This category was comprised of six compounds and were seen in all three ink systems.
Toxicological data were available for only one compound, C.I. Pigment Red 23, which
was found to have clear dermal concern. The other compounds in this category were
analyzed by the SAT and found to have low or low-moderate human health hazard and low
or possible occupational risk levels. C.I. Pigment Blue 61 presented a medium aquatic
hazard; the others had a low aquatic hazard concern. C.I. Pigment Yellow 14 was found
to present a low-moderate cancer hazard concern. Inhalation exposure was not expected
for any of these compounds, and none of the compounds are explicitly regulated under the
federal regulations discussed in this document.
Pigments — organometallic
Nine organometallic pigments were used in all three ink systems. One compound, D&C
Red No. 7, presented medium dermal systemic hazard and clear dermal risk based on
toxicological data. One other compound subjected to toxicological testing, C.I. Pigment
Green 7, presented a possible dermal risk level. Most of the other inks, as determined by
the SAT, presented low-moderate dermal hazard and possible dermal occupational risk
concern. Most of the compounds had a medium or high aquatic hazard level, and all of
the SAT-analyzed compounds presented a low-moderate cancer hazard. Inhalation
exposure was not expected for any of these compounds, and none of the compounds are
explicitly regulated under the federal regulations discussed in this document.
Polyol derivatives
These compounds were used in solvent-based and UV-cured inks as resins. For
nitrocellulose, the SAT assigned a low-moderate human health hazard and possible
occupational risk level by dermal exposure and a low aquatic hazard level. Polyol
derivative A had low human health hazard and occupational risk ratings via dermal
exposure and a low aquatic hazard rating. Inhalation exposure was not expected for either
compound, and neither of the compounds is explicitly regulated under the federal
regulations discussed in this document.
Propylene glycol ethers
These compounds were used as solvents in solvent- and water-based inks, and have all
been subjected to toxicological testing. Propylene glycol propyl ether, based on
toxicological data, presented a moderate systemic human health hazard concern via both
dermal and inhalation exposure routes, and had possible dermal and inhalation
occupational risk concern. The other two compounds, dipropylene glycol methyl ether
and propylene glycol methyl ether, presented a low hazard concern and a low occupational
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-52
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
risk for both exposure pathways at the concentrations observed in the inks used in this
CTSA. All three compounds had a low aquatic hazard, and none were known to present
a cancer hazard.
Two compounds, dipfopylene glycol methyl ether and propylene glycol methyl ether, are
regulated under TSCA. In addition, dipropylene glycol methyl ether has an OSHA PEL
of 100 ppm.
Resins
Resins were found in solvent- and water-based inks. One compound, polymerized rosin,
presented a low-moderate human health hazard and a possible risk concern as determined
by the SAT. All other compounds in this category presented low human health hazard and
low occupational risk for dermal exposure. One chemical - resin acids, hydrogenated,
methyl esters - had a high aquatic hazard rating, and acrylic resin had a medium aquatic
hazard rating. Acrylic resin also may pose a cancer hazard based on evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals. Inhalation exposure was not expected for any of these
compounds, and none of the compounds are explicitly regulated under the federal
regulations discussed in this document.
Siloxanes
These compounds are used in all three systems as additives (defoamers and wetting
agents). Silicone oil, as determined through toxicological data, was anticipated to have
moderate developmental hazard concern via dermal exposure, and possible dermal risk.
The other two compounds, l,l,l-trimethyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-silanamine hydrolysis
products with silica and dimethyl 3-hydroxypropyl methyl siloxanes and silicones, ethers
with polyethylene glycol acetate, were analyzed by the SAT and determined to have a low-
moderate human health hazard and a possible dermal risk concern. All of the compounds
had a low aquatic hazard rating, and none were known to present a cancer hazard. No
inhalation exposure is anticipated for any of these compounds. Silicone oil is regulated
under TSCA.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-53
September 2000
-------
to
UJ
o
o
o
z
o
o
i
<
o
53
O
o
oo
'
CO
_CD
O
O
£_
CO CO
.CD CD
U O
E?
a
s
ra
O
"«
to
0)
O
Q
^
w
£
•o
(0
"S
I
re
CO
co
srj
CO
CO
CD
73
§5
(0
.2
-Q
i
.CD
.g
CO
o
Q.
.CD
.g
'55
CO
o
a.
C
CO
73
I
o
£v
0> CO
CO
I
.>>
a
73
Q to
CO
s
CO
V-
£
CO
CO
73
"3
73
£
CO
«V
ryla
ane tri
_ ^
= 10
j)
.Q
(O
O
O.
(O
o
Q.
^JL^L
2
CD
_>,
O
a.
73
I
I
CO
3
°L
CD
"o
Q.
a.
CD
73
1
I
ine polymer8
igoa
O <
<0
CO
&
I
.>,
o
0.
i<
s,?
•5 co
Q.<
0°
1
£•
-I
I
I
li
II
O
5
>,
X
O
£.«?
o> £
gf
II
£-CM
•2 CD
^«
Ipropane propoxylate
53879-54-2
II
>
-------
0)
c
2
2
%£
CO
o
Q_ UJ
LJJ D-
a
f/1
CO
CD
O
C5
CO
-met
mer
late-
la
pol
acidic (tfs
CO
insoluble
CO
crylic acid
polymer
polymer (#'s
CO
CO
CO
C CD
0 C
CO Q)
:&£•
3 in
•9 CD
Sto f
o ->,a>
5 IS
IP
< E CM
L-
uT
a>
is
f§
CO °
0 S-.
^CM
c?l
< CO
Acrylic acid polymer,
CAS: NA
Butyl acrylate-metha
methyl methacrylate
25035-69-2 -
•o
¥<
o *-
'*%
ScS
£2-
§CM
>,"0
-2" c
CO (0
Styrene acrylic acid
O
0.
73
O
CO
o ,_
S
I^
"o
J2
8
o
CO
CO
CO
o.
s
Q.
1>
l-a
-a
8
^
J1J8'
ill!!
o "" S
in
m
-------
CO
tu
§
o
o
o
1
<
o
z
I
o
o
•a
0)
b
o
0)
2
CO
O
"m
.9
o>
O
co
•#•*
CO
Q
DC
•a
co
CO
CO
eo
r^
eo
eo
I
Q.
O
<
o
CO
o
a:
LLJ
o
I
.o>
.Q
'a>
s
a.
.o
'
«J
o
Q.
3
^
I
X
|2
5
s
3
j
s e
JO V
|§
Ik
^
1
"co
s
S c
CO Q)
XI
o
CO
£
£
a.
f
I
II
o ^^
111
-------
TJ
E^t:
o g
n E
3 S
Q
0 0
0}
Chemicals
E
*
OT
_c
a>
CD
0
V)
^i
o
(0
1
CD
d
1
z
S
X
1—
2-Benzyl-2-(dimethylamino)-4'-
morpholinobutyrophenone 119313-
12-1
CD
c:
1
13
S
H
CO
1-Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone
947-19-3
,
E
cti
C
'
s
0
•g
s
§
5
!<
CO
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary,
ethoxylated 68131-40-8
c
3
'8
a
2
2
^:
— '
-1
55:
CO
Ethoxylated tetramethyldecyndiol
9014-85-1
CO
0>
O
X
_,
X
-1
X
^
§
9
i
8
t
LJJ
CD
c:
1
o
Q.
-------
CO
10
O
-------
TJ
11
3 £
in 3
a: J
a:
2^
U)
a:
c
Occupatio
n
1
c
o
'to
"a
c
Dermal |
M
_O
75
c
„
n
CD
Q
w
u
c
n
U
o
CD
C
1
0
Q-
2
2
-^
!r
ource
*
Chemicals
CO
U)
—
£
Methylenedisalicylic acid
27496-82-8
0
c
C
c
c
o
0
E
i
i
CO
.c
1
\
o
CD
C
0)
.Q
CO
8
a.
Z
I]
2
g
Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)
Dhosohine oxide 75980-60-8
^
O
K
CD
C
CD
.Q
Q.
r
I
g
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate
1241-94-7
CD
C
L.
CO
CD
U
Z
^
2
8
fe
Phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-dimetho
benzoyi) (2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)-
145052-34-2
•E
CD
d§
CO
t
c
I
<
o
F
c
1
1
o
CD
C
CO
CD
O
2
5
§
2
S Q?
f" S
l__
%%
2
S
Isopropoxyethoxytitanium bis
fecetvlacetonate) 68586-02-7
CD
C
1
^
2
§
2
2
CO
Titanium diisopropoxide bis(2,4-
oentanedionate) 17927-72-9
CD
C
CO
CD
U
2
^
eg
2
^^
H
CO
9
CO
C£
a
in
0
c
£
c
£
'£
j
H
•£
' >
0
CO
c.
'c
CO
1
c
1
1
c
LJJ
3.
CO
D
CD
C
_CD
'co
in
8.
z
H3
_ g
•|1
CO >
J
g
h-.
C.I. Pigment White 6 13463-67-
CD
C
CD
JD
1
Q.
2
^
2
i
J
i
C.I. Pigment White 7 1314-98-3
c ,_
CD a)
CO >• D
•a ^
it
s
IS rt
*
« a
B* S
i .S2 T3 rt
i tQJ ,cj
S ^
H
o
o
o
1)
a.
up
CO
•
ot classifia
possible h
tial busmes
rd info
tional
in th
infor
m this
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
-------
O
CO
-------
•a
O 0)
IB E
3 £
If
St
8)
i2
c
_o
to
a.
8
o
•S
i
Q
o
z
TO
"55
0)
a
_o
15
c
"ffl
E
o
Q
s_
0
C
re
O
«
ource 1
CO
Chemicals
E
w
_c
CO
J
_J
-
5
£
1
"S
1
c
S
L.
CD
"S3
1
2
Q.
1
"ro
CD
c
0)
1=
Q. 0
03
C
CD
d
- -
^
s
1
s.
8.
•a
a)
E
T3
CO 2
d
1 ;;
"
±1
-
1
«T
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimer
polymers with ethylenediamine,
hexamethylenediamine, and
propionic acid
67989-30-4
CD
d
-
13
I
g
5
Resin acids, hydrogenated, me
esters
8050-15-5
o
d
°
13
-a
(0 >
-
S
i
1
d"
8
DC
0)
d
Z
^
Resin, miscellaneous6 CAS: N
CD
d
-
^
_j
1
.c
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with
diethyiene glycol and pentaeryt
68152-50-1
CD
d
~
<
5
-
%
•o cb
Rosin, fumarated, polymer with
pentaerythritol, 2-propenoic ac
ethenylbenzene, and (1-
methylethylenyl)benzenee CA
-------
CO
UJ
I
I
al
3
CO
0
0
z
co
I
o
1
•2. 11°
I
I
re
8
o
o.
0)
c:
U]
O
CO
o
0>
O
1
re
Q
o:
c
re
•s
re
I
*o
b
re
E
co
CO
Q
V)
<
CO
o
wg
.5 .«= •£ 5)
S5
CO
CO
QL
ill
o.
O
in
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
Suggestions for Evaluating and Improving Flexographic Inks
As this CTSA shows, several factors are involved in the selection of a flexographic ink.
Because flexographic printing facilities are different, the criteria for identifying the best
ink for each facility inevitably will vary. Therefore, the ultimate decision will have to be
made based on considerations as they apply to the specific facility.
Likewise, ink formulators will have different considerations. In the process of improving
the performance of inks, formulators will encounter the opportunity to substitute ink
components that pose health concerns with those that are safer for press workers and the
environment.
The following sections describe some of the steps that can help printers in identifying, and
formulators in creating, safer flexographic inks. They range from steps that relate directly
to information and ideas contained in the CTSA to those that will require processes outside
of those considered in this analysis.
Printers
The selection of a specific ink is a complex process that is highly dependent on facility-
specific factors. Some general considerations are presented below.
• Know your inks: Evaluate your current ink system by considering all aspects of
its use, including performance, worker and environmental risk, and costs. You
can use this CTSA to determine whether chemicals present in your inks may
present hazards and risks to your workers and the environment. Consider that
choices of an ink system, and within that, the specific product lines and
formulations, have many implications, some of which you may not have
considered in the past. Another important source that can help provide this
information is your ink supplier, who may be able to provide safety information
specific to your inks.
• Consider alternatives: Use this CTSA to identify possibly safer ink alternatives
and to help you determine whether you are using the best, safest, and most cost
effective ink system for your facility's situation. You may also wish to discuss
your options with ink suppliers, trade associations, technical assistance providers,
other printers, and your customers.
• Evaluate your current practices: Even if you are using the safest ink possible, you
may be increasing the risk to workers by using it inefficiently. As seen with the
solvent- and water-based inks in this CTSA, solvent and additives added at press
side increased the number of chemicals of clear worker risk. By minimizing or
eliminating the need for these materials — using enclosed doctor blades and ink
fountains, minimizing ink film thickness, and closely monitoring ink pH and
viscosity — the risk to workers can be reduced. For presses with an oxidizer
system, it is important to clean the catalyst when necessary and to keep the
equipment operating at the optimum temperature so that it destroys as much VOC
material as possible.
• Protect workers: Experienced and responsible employees are essential to a
successful printing operation. Maintain their health and motivation by maximizing
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-63
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
air quality and reducing the presence of hazardous materials. These steps may
also yield savings with respect to regulatory and storage costs. You can also
protect workers by ensuring that people who handle ink use gloves. Butyl and
nitrile gloves are considered best for inks, and will minimize exposure to
chemicals that may pose a health risk.
• Look at all aspects of your printing operation: Though this CTSA focuses on ink,
several other steps in the flexographic printing process are sources of waste and
candidates for process improvement. Read Chapter 7: Additional Improvement
Opportunities for pollution prevention ideas that range from measures for
particular process steps to facility-wide concepts. Systematic approaches, such as
an Environmental Management System (EMS) or full-cost accounting, can help
flexographers identify areas for improvement in their management of resources.
Ink Formulators and Suppliers
Ink companies have several important resources at their disposal: knowledgeable
researchers, financial resources, and a communication network of sales representatives.
Ink formulators have the ability to evaluate the feasibility of the substitution of different
and safer chemicals, and can thoroughly test new formulations for performance
characteristics. Supplier representatives have the ability to articulate the benefits of safer,
better performing or less costly inks to printers.
• Support environmental and health risk research: Research is needed on several
categories of chemicals:
0 those that are not regulated and pose risks
0 new chemicals (usually not regulated and not tested)
0 chemicals that have not undergone toxicological testing and have clear or
possible risk concerns
0 high production volume chemicals*
The point of such research is to ensure that the flexographic industry has access
to as much information as possible about the chemicals they work with.
Information is the most important key to improving inks.
Make improved ink safety a top goal of research and development: The
flexographic printing industry constantly demands new inks that can meet
increasing performance needs. In addition to performance research, ink
formulators can meet the needs of printers by looking for substitute ingredients
that are less harmful to workers and the environment.
Communicate the safety aspects of inks with printers: When sales representatives
discuss different ink options with printers, inform the printers of any
improvements in the environmental and worker risks associated with each product
line. Because inks with minimized environmental and worker risks can result in
cost savings as well as improved working conditions and less liability, printers
* High production volume (HPV) chemicals are manufactured in or imported into the United States in
amounts greater than one million pounds per year. EPA has initiated a HPV Challenge Program to gather
test data for all these organic chemicals (about 2,800). The CTSA includes 40 chemicals that appear on the
HPV Challenge Program Chemical List.
>UBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-64
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
may be interested in this information. Research has indicated that for printers,
environmental and health risk issues are an important criteria when selecting an
ink — second only to performance.9
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-65
September 2000
-------
CHAPTER 8
CHOOSING AMONG INK TECHNOLOGIES
REFERENCES
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Lodewyck, Paul. Progressive Ink Company. 2000. Personal Communication with Trey Kellett,
Abt Associates Inc. March 26, 2000.
Mishan, EJ. Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Praeger, 1976.
Unsworth, Robert E. and James E. Neumann. 1993. Industrial Economics, Inc.
Memorandum to Jim DeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis and Review. Review of Existing
Value of Morbidity Avoidance Estimates: Draft Valuation Document. September 30, 1993.
Tolley, G.S., et al. January 1986. Valuation of Reductions in Human Health Symptoms and
Risks. University of Chicago. Final Report for the U.S. EPA. As cited in Unsworth, Robert
E. and James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics, Incorporated. Memorandum to Jim
DeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis and Review. Review of Existing Value of Morbidity
Avoidance Estimates: Draft Valuation Document. September 30, 1993.
Dickie, M., et al. September 1987. Improving Accuracy and Reducing Costs of Environmental
Benefit Assessments. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Tolley, G.S., et al. Valuation of
Reductions in Human Health Symptoms and Risks. January 1986. University of Chicago.
Final Report for the U.S. EPA. As cited in Unsworth, Robert E. and James E. Neumann,
Industrial Economics, Incorporated. Memorandum to Jim DeMocker, Office of Policy
Analysis.and Review. Review of Existing Value of Morbidity Avoidance Estimates: Draft
Valuation Document. September 30, 1993.
Tolley, et.al.
Rowe, R.D. and L.G. Chestnut. Oxidants and Asthmatics in Los Angeles: A Benefit Analysis.
Energy and Resource Consultants, Inc. report to U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, EPA-
230-07-85-010. Washington, DC March 1985. Addendum March 1986. As cited in
Unsworth, Robert E. and James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics, Incorporated,
Memorandum to Jim DeMocker, Office of Policy Analysis and Review, Review of Existing
Value of Morbidity Avoidance Estimates: Draft Valuation Document. September 30,1993.
Chris Patterson, Flint Ink. Written comments to Karen Doerschug, U.S. EPA, July 6, 2000.
ICF Consulting. 2000. Internal document for the EPA Design for the Environment Project.
January 18, 2000.
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
8-66 September 2000
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2000-523-356/95173
-------
-------
------- |