WASTE REDUCTION EVALUATION OF SOY-BASED
INK AT A SHEET-FED OFFSET PRINTER
by
Beth Simpson, Pamela Tazik and
Gary D, Miller
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Project Officer
Paul M. Randall
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under contract no. CR-815829 to the University of Illinois and the Hazardous Waste Research
and Information Center in Champaign, Illinois. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review process and approved for publication as an EPA document. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA nor does mention of the
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.;.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products frequently carry
with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public
health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the nation's land, air and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws,
the agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct.the EPA to
perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible
engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to
drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous waste, and Superfund-
related activities. This publication is one of the products of that research and provides a vital
communications link between the researcher and the use community.
This document presents the results of an experiment conducted to quantify and compare
wastes generated from the use of soy-based and petroleum-based inks. It also examines the
economics of using both petroleum-based and soy-based Inks.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
III
-------
ABSTRACT
This Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) project quantifies and
compares wastes generated from the use of soy-based and petroleum-based inks in sheet-fed offset
printing. Data were collected in a full-scale print run on a Miller TP104 Plus 6-color press in July 1992
at the Office of Printing Services, University of Illinois, a medium-size in-plant printer in Champaign,
IL. Four petroleum-based inks and four soy-based inks were studied in a 4400 sheet work-and-turn
print job. The amounts of each ink used, each cleaner used, wastes on cleaning rags, and'wastes in
the wash-up trays were measured for each print run. Each ink and each cleaner was analyzed for total
solids and volatiles content. Quantities of air emissions, liquid wastes, solid wastes and costs were
estimated and compared for the two print runs.
Ink usage was about 17% greater for the petroleum-based ink run. Cleaner use was about 4%
less for the soy ink run. The two inks required about the same effort to clean from the presses. There
was over 80% less volatile components in the soy-based inks (average of about 0.8% compared to
about 4.6% for the petroleum-based inks). For each ink, over 99% of the air emissions generated
during the printing runs studied originated from the cleaners. In contrast, over 90% .of the liquid
wastes on rags and in the washer trays originated from the inks. Make-ready differences between the
two runs and variability in manual cleaning make comparisons between use of the two inks difficult
in cleaner usage. There were no observed reasons why the amount of liquid wastes generated from
cleaning these inks would differ. Similarly, solid waste generation would generally be expected to be
the same. The print run using soy-based inks resulted in slightly less costs in ink and cleaner usage.
5V
-------
Operating efficiency (such as preventing spills and using only the amount of cleaner needed for the
test) can have a greater impact on waste generation and costs than the type of ink used.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number CR-0815829 by the Hazardous
Wastes Research and Information Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from June 1991
to September 1992, and work was completed as of December 1992.
-------
CONTENTS
Notice ii
Foreword Hi
Abstract iv
List of Figures . vii
List of Tables . . . ; viii
Acknowledgement ix
1. Introduction and Background , 1
Statement of the problem . . . . 1
Offset printing process , 3
Office of Printing Services , .• 4
Ink industry * 7
Liquid cleaning agents for offset presses 8
, 2. Conclusions and Recommendations 10
3. Materials and Methods 13
Materials use measurements . . . 15
Estimating ink and cleaner air emissions ,..,..,... 16
Estimating liquid wastes from the inks and cleaners 18
4. Results and Discussion , 20
In-plant measurements of materials use . 21
Laboratory results of volatile content 24
Air emissions 25
Liquid wastes . . 26
Solid wastes 27
Cost comparison 28
Discussion of additional waste reduction options with an offset press . . 30
5. Quality Assurance 34
References 36
Appendix 37
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Inking and damping roller detail for a single color offset press
VII
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Selected chemical characteristics of the cleaners used during make-
ready and for final press cleaning 16
2 Quantity of each ink used during the print job 21
3 Quantity of blanket cleaners used during each print run 22
4 Quantity of rollers cleaners used at each press unit for the petroleum and soy
ink pring runs ......;;•.... 23
5 Inks and cleaners used, waste produced for the petroleum and soy-
based ink runs (g) ". 24
6 Results of laboratory . analysis to determine solid and volatile
components in the inks used 25
7 Results of laboratory analysis to determine solid and volatile components in the roller
and blanket cleaners used . . 25
8 Solid and volatile contents of inks and cleaners used for the petroleum and soy-based
ink runs (g) 26
9 Estimated cost of cleaner used for each pring run at OPS 31
10 Annual cost comparison of utilizing automatic blanket washers ............ 32
11 Economic analysis of automatic blanket washers at OPS . . . 33
12 Quality assurance objectives 35
VIII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank Paul Randall, the USEPA Project Manager, for his support and patience during this
project. We would like to acknowledge Gary Hall and the staff at the Office of Printing Services of the
University of Illinois for their participation in this study; their assistance and cooperation made this
project possible. A number of HWRIC staff were involved in the project. Alisa Wickliff/ Gary Miller
and Bill Tancig were involved in the early stages and developed the initial scope of work. Laurie Case,
Beth Simpson, Jackie Peden, Alisa Ocker and Gary Miller collected the data during the print job that •
was monitored. Brad Daniels performed all laboratory analyses. Beth Simpson, Pamela Tazik and Gary
Miller prepared the report with the help and review comments of many of the staff listed here. We
appreciate the efforts of all the staff involved in the project. We also wish to acknowledge Gary Jones
of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) and Dr. William Schaeffer, a GATF consultant, for
their critical reviews of the draft report. Their comments and supporting documentation greatly
improved the final report.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This project^ part of the lllinois-EPA WRITE Program, focuses on one of five technologies being
evaluated by the Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center (HWRIC) for potential contribution
toward waste reduction or pollution prevention. This project is a joint effort of the University of Illinois'
Office of Printing Services (OPS), the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources through
HWRIC, and the US EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory- The goal of the study is to evaluate
the waste reduction and economic effects of using soy-based inks in place of the petroleum-based inks
traditionally used in sheet-fed offset printing.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Since the late 1950's, print shops have relied on petroleum-based inks and, for a longer time,
solvent-based cleaners in their operations. Soy-based news inks, where soy oil completely replaced
the nondrying petroleum oils as the ink vehicle, were first produced in 1985 by the American
Newspaper Publishers Association for printing newspapers. The impetus for this development initially
came from the oil shortages of the 1970's that threatened the supply of petroleum-based chemicals,
including inks. However, increased emphasis on improving worker safety and reducing emissions to
land, air and water also motivated the lithographic printing industry to seek "cleaner" technologies,
without sacrificing print quality.
-------
Alternative ink formulations, producing lower volatile organic compounds (VOCs), for the
lithographic and letterpress printing industry have been developed with soy oil. Offset inks are
•
composed of four main components. These are termed pigments, varnish, aliphatic petroleum
distillates and additives (wax, driers and antioxidants). Pigments typically comprise 15 to 20% of the
volume. Additives comprise another 3 to 10% of the volume. In petroleum inks, petroleum distillates
can comprise up to 20% of the volume and the varnish comprises the remaining volume of'45 to 60%.
The varnish can contain various oils such as linseed oil and resins. The composition of offset inks
differs in that the aliphatic petroleum distillate composition is reduced to about 10% of the-Volume and
soy oil is used in the varnish, Ink manufacturers have not been able to satisfactorily replace all of the
petroleum oils with soy oil or other vegetable oils in offset inks.
Soy inks were first produced for the lithographic and letterpress newsprint industries, and by
1989 they were being marketed to the entire offset printing industry. Today, sheet-fed soy inks are
defined as those inks that have a minimum of 20% soy oil. These inks are then allowed to use the Soy
Seal Trademark issued by the American Soybean Association. The soy oil replaces all or some of the
nondrying petroleum oils in the ink vehicle. Soy ink is being used by several types of printers
throughout the US and it reportedly has a variety of advantages over the traditional petroleum-based
inks. Soy ink is advertised as being partially biodegradable in landfills, it releases less volatile organic
chemical emissions than petroleum-based inks, is a renewable resource, and is more conducive to
printing press cleanup than petroleum-based inks. Soy-based ink is thought to be advantageous for
the environment and agriculture because it can be domestically produced and alleviates some health
and safety concerns through reduced VOC emissions. In addition, vegetable oil inks are said to be
economical because they reportedly spread further and allow for quicker press start-up (Scarlett,
-------
1992). If that is the case, less time, paper and ink would be used in setting up printing jobs and less
ink would be required to complete the job compared to printing with petroleum-based inks.
Ease of cleaning inks from printing presses is an important factor for operator acceptance,
productivity, cost savings, and environmental impact. Some cleaners are highly volatile and contain
toxic chemicals. If soy inks can be cleaned more easily or with less toxic chemicals then the amount
of liquid wastes and air emissions generated will be reduced. In this study, the same set of cleaners
were used for each type of ink. Ease of cleaning and the amount of cleaners used for the two types
of inks were investigated.
OFFSET PRINTING PROCESS
The original printing system, now called "letterpress," consisted of assembling metal or wooden
letters in a locking form, inking the surface of all the letters, then pressing a sheet of paper against the
letters to pick up the ink. This was the system first used by Johann Gutenberg in 1440 and, with very
few improvements, it persisted for over 500 years.
As printing technology developed, more efficient lithographic techniques replaced movable
type. Lithography began with drawing a wax-based .design on a stone. The non-design part of the
stone is then wetted with an aqueous wetting solution which permits a suitable ink to transfer, the
design to a sheet of paper. In effect, the water repels the ink, and only the inked design is transferred.
In the 1940's it was discovered that a metal plate can be made to function much like a lithographic
stone. More recently various polymer plates have been developed. .With a plate, the portion
representing text or a design can be coated with the proper ink after the portion with no design has
been wetted with a water solution to repel the ink: The flexible plate is wrapped around a metal
cylinder and transfers/offsets its inked design to an intermediate blanket, and then to paper. When
single sheets of paper are fed into such a press it is termed "sheet-fed offset". If a continuous length
-------
of paper (or web) is used, the press is called a "web offset." Many offset printing operations now set
up each page via computer input.
Figure 1 is the schematic layout for a single color station typical of a sheet-fed offset press
without the paper feed, drying mechanism, and finished product receptacle. A six-color press requires
a similar assembly for each color, including ink pan, plate, a transfer mechanism, and many rollers.
The offset printing press is complex, and calls for a large number of adjustable parameters including
roller pressure, paper alignment, and ink film thickness (Brewer, 1971). For newspapers, magazines
and other publications individual stories and advertisements are written, edited, and pasted into a single
electronic page which is then either typeset and photographed or transferred directly to film in order
to provide the plate required for offset printing.
In Illinois there are approximately 3800 printing facilities that operate offset presses. Of those
facilities, 3550 operate sheet-fed offset presses, 160 operate both web and sheet-fed presses, and
250 facilities operate with only web offset presses. About 3200 of these facilities have one-color
sheet-fed offset presses. In addition, 1725 of the 3200 have presses over 22" wide.
OFFICE OF PRINTING SERVICES
The operating partner in this project is the Office of Printing Services (OPS) at the University
of Illinois in Champaign, Illinois. OPS is primarily an in-plant printer as opposed to a commercial
printer, i.e., they print materials only for their parent organization, in this case, the University of Illinois.
They are considered a medium size in-plant printer and gross $4.5 million annually,. Typical OPS print
jobs include posters, brochures and programs for campus activities and forthcoming events, and
departmental materials.
-------
Dampening Roller • Ink Rollers
Paper
Impression
Cylinder
Sheet Transfer
Cylinder •
— Plate Cynlinder
Blanket Cylinder
Printed Image
Figure 1. Inking and damping roller detail for a single color offset press
-------
OPS's print shop occupies the top floor of a two-story university building that was built for OPS
in 1964. Modifications have been added to suit the increasing needs of the printing operation.
Currently, the operating press floor, including an administrative office and several rooms for photo
preparation and editing, covers about 5,000 square feet. There are eight letterset and eight off-set
presses of various ages and types in the shop. The Miller TP104 Plus sheet-fed offset press used for
this study is capable of printing six colors on 23" X 47" sheets at a maximum rate of 10,000 sheets
per hour.
In 1989 air monitoring was conducted at OPS by the University of Illinois' Division of
Environmental Health and Safety. Air samples were tested for benzene, toluene, xylene,
trimethylbenzene, Stoddard solvent, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and ethahol. Although none of the OSHA
permissible exposure limits (PEL) were exceeded or even approached for-the eight-hour monitoring
period, some recommendations were made to improve ventilation. Those recommendations, which
are being implemented, were to 1) provide general air dilution for the offset press
area with a minimum of 20 cubic feet per minute of fresh air make-up per person (ASHRAE.62-1981),
and 2) maintain negative air pressure in the offset press area in relation to adjoining rooms to keep
fumes from infiltrating other work areas.
The OPS staff agreed to enter into this cooperative project because of their commitment to
employee safety and to active research participation as a University of Illinois organization, and
because of their desire to be a model environmentally-aware print shop. The solvents used to clean
the presses are also of concern to OPS, since they are also a significant source of air emissions
(volatile organics). Marketers claim that soy ink requires less cleaner for press cleanup and that
alternative cleaners of lower VOC content can be used for this cleanup compared to petroleum based
inks. One bench top study, using letterhead paper, and another at Western Michigan University
showed that soy oil releases from the paper pulp more easily, so paper recycling causes less damage
-------
to the pulp fibers when de-inking. This costs less and yields better quality recycled paper (Serafano
1991 and Harbin, no date). Improved quality of recycled paper helps to insure a steady market for the
product.
During the 2 years prior to the study, OPS tried various types of soy inks and alternative
cleaners. They found printing with the newer soy inks to be very satisfactory and now use them as
much as possible. For some colors satisfactory soy inks are not yet available from their vendor. For
those colors petroleum inks are used. After testing several alternative cleaners OPS has settled on
using the same cleaners for both petroleum and soy inks. Press operators found the alternative
cleaners they tested took longer to clean, did not remove the inks easily and some left a cloudy film
which later had to be removed.
At OPS, as with most printers, work quality is given top priority. After a project is set up on
a press and the chief operator considers it ready to run, one sample must be approved by the shop
foreman and a second must be approved by the University customer. This latter step assures customer
satisfaction. Because of this emphasis on quality, any proposed changes in the printing process to
reduce waste, including plates, inks, cleaners, and paper, must be thoroughly examined before they
are adopted.
INK INDUSTRY
According to a 1987 National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, Inc. (NAPIM) "Census
of Manufacturers," U.S. ink manufacturers employed 11,100 persons in 504 ink manufacturing
facilities; 1700 persons were employed in 50 ink manufacturing plants in Illinois alone. Of the 504
establishments, 208 or 41% manufacture lithographic and offset inks. These 208 offset ink
manufacturing plants employ 5,800 persons. The total value of products shipped for offset inks in the
-------
U.S. in 1987 was $987.3 million of which $128,7 million, or 13%, came from Illinois firms. For all
printing ink manufacturing in the U.S. in 1987, the total value of shipped products was approximately
$2.4 billion. The total amount of sheet-fed offset inks shipped in 1987 was 20 million pounds. The
total cost of materials, services, and fuels, and electric energy used by ink manufacturing
establishments was $1.4 billion per year (NAPIM, 1987).
Over one third of the nation's 9,000 + newspaper printers are now using either black or colored
soy ink. Most ink manufacturers are now using soy oil as a pigment vehicle, and they are formulating
soy inks for their sheet-fed, heat-set, and forms ink customers. According to the American Soybean
Association, for ink manufacturers to obtain the rights to display the SoySeal™, their soybean oil-based
ink,must use soybean oil as its only vegetable oil ingredient. Also, the minimum soybean oil content
required to use their seal ranges from 10 percent to 55 percent depending on whether it is a news,
sheet-fed, forms, or heat-set ink (Cooke, 1991).
LIQUID CLEANING AGENTS FOR OFFSET PRESSES
Printing presses require meticulous cleaning. Most cleaners are formulated for cleaning specific
parts of a press including rollers, blankets, and cylinders. Some printers have traditionally used organic
solvent cleaners, in some cases even gasoline and kerosene, because offset inks have responded best
to these cleaners and they were affordable. These products are considered hazardous (flammable)
materials.
Alternative cleaning agents are now being formulated to use with vegetable-based ink products.
These alternative cleaners generally contain less hazardous materials than traditional cleaners. Less
toxic solvents have been substituted for traditional solvents, and in some cases aqueous cleaners have
been substituted for solvent cleaners (USEPA, 1989; Ferris, 1992). For example, over the years
benzene has been replaced by less toxic aliphatic solvents such as Stoddard solvent and naphthas.
8
-------
Many halogenated compounds have also been replaced (USEPA, 1990). Extensive information is
available on existing cleaning agents (Mazerall, 1987; Evanoff et al., 1988; Hayes, 1988).
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In terms of the amounts of inks and cleaners used in the two print runs, comparisons were
complicated because approximately 25% more pages were printed using petroleum inks: The extra
pages resulted from excess moisture which caused wrinkling in the first batch of paper used. For this
press, the same cleaners were used for both types of inks. Cleanup was more rigorous at-the end of
the run using soy inks. For this specific print job, approximately 17% more petroleum-based inks were
used than soy-based inks to complete an identical image print run (after correcting for differences
between the runs). Overall, the amount of .cleaners used was about 4% less for the soy ink run after
adjusting for differences in the length of the runs. In both cases, the inks were equally easy to clean
from the presses. Typically the same amount of time, effort and amount of cleaners would be required
for both inks.
Both types of inks had low contents of volatile components, with soy-based inks having
significantly less than the petroleum-based inks. Based on laboratory drying measurements, soy-based
inks averaged about 0.8% volatile components and petroleum-based inks averaged 4.6% volatile
components. Thus, the soy inks release only about 17% of the mass of volatile chemicals upon
drying. The roller and blanket cleaners used at OPS had greater than 97% volatile content. With both
types of ink, over 90% of the liquid wastes originated from the inks and over 99% of volatile chemical
emissions resulted from use of the cleaners (99.4% with the petroleum inks and 99.6% with the soy
inks). Since most of the air emissions were from the cleaners, less than a 1 % overall reduction in air
10
-------
emissions resulted from using the soy-based inks. The longer the print run the greater the reduction
in volatiles from using soy inks.
The sources of liquid wastes that were generated were the cleanup rags and washup trays.
It was determined that about 60 per cent more liquids were on the rags after cleaning the press after
the petroleum ink run. In addition, almost 10 per cent more liquids were generated in the washup trays
after the petroleum ink run. However, because of various differences in the two runs and imprecise
metering of cleaners, it is not possible to conclude that the petroleum inks generated more liquid
wastes than the other soy inks.
Due to problems with excessive moisture content in the paper at the beginning of the
petroleum ink run, 1,375 printed pages had to be discarded as solid waste. In contrast, at the
beginning of the soy ink print run only 100. pages were wasted during make-ready. That is closer to
the amount of solid waste that would typically be generated during setup on an automated press.
Normally there would be no significant difference in paper wasted during make-ready because of ink
type. It is important to properly store the paper to reduce solid waste. Automated .plate and press
alignment is also beneficial for reducing solid waste generated during make-ready. Because the soy
inks generally spread further (by an average of about 17%), less used ink containers may be generated
with these inks.
For this study, the most important cost comparison factors are the price of the raw materials
and amounts used. At OPS there is no difference in the average cost of the two types of inks.
Generally soy inks tend to cost about 10% more. For the relatively small print job studied (4,951
pages), it was estimated that the cost savings from printing with soy inks, since less were used, was
about $1.20. Over the course of a year with multiple print jobs this cost savings would accumulate.
However, this cost difference would be small compared to other costs that printers have to consider.
11
-------
Thus, a 10% cost difference in the price of inks is not a major factor to printers. The two print runs
only differed by 5 cents in the cost of material to clean the press. The soy-based ink cost $5.67 to
clean while an equivalent petroleum-based ink cost $5.71.
The greatest potential for reducing wastes in offset printing would be to use less volatile
cleaners and modify the presses so that less inks and cleaners would have to be wasted. Currently,
the operators at OPS have not been able to find an acceptable aqueous or very low volatile cleaner.
For the type of press studied, an automated blanket wash system could be installed to reduce the
amount of cleaner used. The utilization of automated blanket wash systems could reduce the amount
of cleaner used by up to 33%, thus reducing air emissions from those cleaners by that percentage.
These systems are costly and may be beyond the means of most printers. The payback period for
such a system at OPS was estimated to be about 3 years which may be longer than most printers are
willing to accept.
Overall, soy inks have some environmental and other advantages for sheet-fed offset printers.
The main environmental advantage with use of soy inks is that they release less than 20% of the mass
of volatile organic chemicals compared to petroleum inks. The soy inks also spread about 15% further
which offsets the small difference in cost that currently exists. Reportedly, recycling of soy ink printed
paper also has some advantages. All other factors such as make-ready time, appearance of printed
product and clean up effort were essentially equivalent between the two types of inks in this study..
12
-------
SECTION 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data for this study were collected during a full-scale print run on a Miller TP104 Plus six-color
press on July 17, 1992 at the Office of Printing Services (OPS). The print job was a 4400 sheet, six-
color, work-and-turn, i.e., the printed image was identical for both sides of the sheet (this job was
selected to insure that operating conditions during the two runs were as similar as possible). A three-
panel Folder was printed on one side with soy inks, and the other with petroleum-based inks. The
press was cleaned and set up between the use of the two types of inks to allow measurements of the
amount of materials used and waste generated. It should be.noted that during a regular work-and-turn
job if the inks were not changed the press would not have been cleaned between the runs. Only four
of the six colors used were included in this study because two colors were a mixture of petroleum inks;
soy inks were not available for those colors. The operating conditions of the press were the same for
each run. All inks used in the study were manufactured by Handschy, Inc. A review of Material
Safety Data Sheets from three ink suppliers (Alden & Ott Printing Inks Company, Arlington Heights,
IL; Handschy Industries-, Inc., Bellwood, IL; and Sinclair and Valentine, L.Pi, St. Paul, Mn) indicate that
both types of inks contain high boiling point petroleum distillates but that soy inks tend to have a
slightly lower boiling range (450 - 600 °F compared to 450 - 630 °F). For one of the companies, their
blue colored petroleum ink contained manganese tallate while that chemical was not listed for their
similar blue soy ink. A copper compound, at less than 5% by weight, was listed as an ingredient of
another company's soy ink. The flash point for all inks used in this study is >200 °F.
13
-------
The scope of the waste reduction evaluation attempted in this study was to compare the
amount of air emissions, liquid wastes, and solid wastes generated during printing and cleaning with
petroleum versus soy inks. Air emissions result from several activities beginning from when the ink
containers are opened and ink is applied to the rollers, to make-ready and printing fro*m the inks and
* "
use of cleaners, to final cleanup, and to storage of wastes on-site prior to disposal. Liquid wastes
primarily are generated during cleanup. Inks and various cleaners are retained on the rags or wipers
that are used to clean the presses. Also, there are wash up trays under the rollers that collect liquids
during printing and cleaning. A difficulty in quantifying these liquid wastes and releases to the room.
air is that evaporation (loss from the liquids) occurs continually during the use of the inks and the
highly volatile cleaners and even after clean up during storage of the liquid wastes. Ultimately the
majority of the volatile portion of these wastes evaporates. Many print shops dispose of their liquid
wastes from washup trays by sending them to a cement kiln or boiler. Liquids on discarded rags are
either laundered (usually offsite) or are sent to a landfill. If the rags are laundered some volatile
components are likely to be released while others along with the dried solids will be discharged to the
local sewer. Solid wastes generated mainly include discarded paper, most of which is usually
generated during make-ready, and rags. Other solid wastes generated in relatively small amounts
include empty ink and cleaner containers. During this test no empty containers were generated. As
is explained below, there were enough differences in make-ready for these two print runs that a fair
comparison of the amount of scrap paper generated could not be made. OPS operators reported that
there is no obvious difference in the amount of waste paper generated when using these two types
of inks.
14
-------
MATERIALS USE MEASUREMENTS
Because of the complexity of directly measuring wastes generated during printing and the
changing composition of those wastes, the approach taken to estimating waste quantities was to first
determine the amount of raw materials (primarily inks and cleaners) used. Ink use was measured by
weighing the separate ink containers before and after the print runs. The ink remaining in the trays
was transferred back to the ink containers before the latter measurement was taken. Measurements
were taken on a Sartorius electronic balance (capacity: 12 kgs., _+ 0.1 gm) at the printing site. After
transport from the Hazardous Materials Laboratory to OPS, the scale was calibrated using the internal
calibration function and checked with Class S weights.
Roller and blanket cleaners were used to clean the press each time it was stopped during make-
ready, and at the end of each print run. Table 1 describes the chemical characteristics, as stated on
the available Material Safety Data Sheets, of the cleaners used for the project. The same cleaners
were used for both types of ink. The roller cleaners RBP #1 and #2 were manufactured by RBP
Chemical Corporation (Milwaukee, WI), and the roller cleaner Mix is made at the Office of Printing
Services. Each of these cleaners is used for a different purpose. RBP#1 is used first to remove inks
from the rollers. This is followed by RBP#2 which is formulated to remove any remaining oils. The
MIX cleaner is used at the end of each day to remove excess gum that may have built up on the
rollers. It is not normally used after each printing run but was in this study for comparison purposes.
The blanket cleaner V-120 was manufactured by Varn Products Co., Inc. (Addison, IL), and
Clean Quick was made by Volatile Stores at the University of Illinois (Champaign, IL). V-120 is used
to clean the printing plates and usually the blanket. Clean Quick is used sparingly for deep cleaning
and faster drying. In the past Clean Quick was the main plate and blanket cleaner used at OPS.
15
-------
TABLE 1. SELECTED CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLEANERS USED DURING
MAKE-READY AND FOR FINAL PRESS CLEANING
Cleaner
RBP#1
RBP#2
MIX
V-120
Clean
Quick
Listed Ingredients (Percentage)
Light Aliphatic Solvent Naphtha
Heavy Aromatic Solvent Naphtha
Diethanolamine
Benzenesulfanic Acid Dodecyl Ester
Stoddard Solvent
Water
Isoprppyl Alcohol
Lactic Acid
Petroleum Naphtha
Petroleum Naphtha
Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether
Ethyl Alcohol
Toluene
<75%
<20%
256
<1Q%
>99%
49%
49%
2%
<45%
<50%
<10%
40%
60%
Boiling
Range °F
nd*
316-360
unknown
320
unknown
Flammability
Flash Point °F
120
104
unknown
106
unknown.--
* nd = no data were supplied by the manufacturer
The amount of each cleaner used was measured by weighing the cleaner in its container before
the print run began and again after completion of the cleaning process at the end of the print run. The
amount of each roller cleaner used at each unit of the press was recorded separately, while the
quantity of each blanket cleaner was recorded for the four units combined. Measurements were taken
on a Sartorius electronic balance (capacity: 12 kgs.,.+. 0.1 gm) located at the printing site.
ESTIMATING INK AND CLEANER AIR EMISSIONS
It was not feasible to directly measure air emissions because of the many point sources from
the press, the difficulty of enclosing the entire printer, and the many other sources of volatile organics
to room air in QPSs shop. Instead, a worst case assumption was made that all the volatile components
of the inks and cleaners used evaporated in the shop. Emissions from the inks and cleaners were
estimated by determining percent solids of the inks in laboratory tests and subtracting that amount
from the total amount of each ink used.
16
-------
The volatile proportion of each ink and cleaner was determined under controlled laboratory
conditions simulating conditions on the press using a modified standard method. The method used to
determine the percent solids and volatiles in each ink and cleaner was a modification of test method
number ASTM D 2369, the Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings (ASTM 1991). A
Denver Company Instrument IR-100 Moisture Analyzer was used to dry the samples. This instrument
allowed the drying temperature to be adjusted to 70 °C, which more closely simulates drying conditions
during the print run than the 110 °C called for in the standard method. Samples of each ink and each
cleaner used during the print run were collected in glass vials with teflon-lined screw caps and
delivered to HWRIC's Hazardous Materials Laboratory (HMD for laboratory analysis of solids and
volatile content. Cleaners were handled using a disposable pipette to transfer a 1 gram sample of each
cleaner to a quartz pad for drying. The ink samples, due to their high viscosity and tendency to form
a 'skin' on the surface, were transferred with a clean spatula; care was taken to break through the
upper, dry layer to access undried ink. The ink samples were then spread onto a previously tared clean
microscope slide to form a thin layer. This resulted in a 0.1 - 0.3 gram sample. The microscope slide
was then inserted into the Moisture Analyzer for drying and weight loss determinations.
The endpoint criteria was set for a <0.01 % change in weight over a 3 minute period for the
cleaners and <0-01 % change over a 10 minute period for the inks. The instrument was activated and
the analysis carried out automatically. Three to four subsamples of each ink and each cleaner were
dried, and the mean was reported with the relative standard deviation. Analysis time was
approximately 60 minutes for the inks and 10 minutes for the cleaners.
Laboratory data were analyzed using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software. An Analysis
Of Variance (ANOVA) test for data with unequal samples sizes was used to test for differences
between the solids component of the soy inks and the petroleum-based inks.
17
-------
ESTIMATING LIQUID WASTES FROM THE INKS AND CLEANERS
The mass of liquid wastes was measured directly during the print runs at the OPS facility. The
sources of liquid wastes measured were the cleaning rags and washup trays. These were considered
to be liquid wastes since the waste inks and cleaners were in liquid form at the end of the printing runs
which is the point when they became wastes. Volatile components of these liquids are continually
evaporating. Some of the inks and cleaners on the rags dry out over time. The maximum amount of
liquid wastes generated was the amount measured on the rags and in the washup trays immediately
at the end of cleanup. These amounts were used for comparison in this study. Due to evaporative
losses, this quantity is not necessarily the amount of liquids that will eventually be sent off-site for
disposal. It should also be noted that not all printers will manage these as liquid wastes. In some
cases, these wastes are sent to a landfill. In other cases soiled rags are laundered.
The amount of waste on the rags was measured by first determining the weight of the dry rags
before the printing process began. Prior to operation of the press the number and weight of the rags
used to clean each unit of the press were recorded. After cleaning the press, the wet rags were re-
weighed immediately to determine total liquid waste (ink and cleaners) in the rags. At the completion
of each print run, the mass of waste (cleaners and ink) that remained in the wash-up trays at each
press unit was determined.
Since these wastes are a mixture of leftover inks and cleaners, an effort was made to
determine the proportion of the wastes from the cleaners and the remaining portion from the inks. The
major unknown is the amount of inks applied to the printed paper. It is not possible to determine this
gravimetrically because the weight of the paper overwhelms the relatively small amount of ink applied.
Also, the paper constantly absorbs moisture from room air and inks continue to dry for hours after
printing. Thus, the weight of the printed paper is not constant. The approach used was to assume
that all the solids in the cleaners used ended up on the soiled rags. By subtracting this amount from
18
-------
the total amount of solids on the dried rags the amount of ink solids on the rags was determined. From
that amount the total amount of liquid waste on the rags from the inks was determined from the
proportion of volatile components in inks. Once the amount of liquid on the rags from waste inks was
known the remaining liquid was assumed to be from the cleaners.
19
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the results of the in-plant measurements of materials used and wastes
produced are presented first. Next, the laboratory results of the solid and volatile components of
the inks and cleaners are presented. This is followed by discussions of the amount of air emissions
and liquid wastes calculated for the two print runs. Finally, a cost comparison of using the two
inks is given. ;••
There was a major difference in the two print runs that affected the difference in ink and
cleaner usage and waste paper generated. Make-ready for the petroleum-based ink run was more
involved than with the soy-based run. At the beginning of the petroleum-based ink run the paper
curled from high humidity and new stock had to be obtained. Plates required registering and
adjustments were made to assure proper ink colpr saturation during make-ready for the first run.
The excess pages printed during make-ready had to be discarded. In each run 4,951 sheets of
acceptable product were printed. During make-ready, for the petroleum ink run an additional 1,375
sheets were printed, while with the soy ink run only 100 make-ready sheets were printed. Thus>
about 25% more pages were printed using petroleum inks. This problem accounts for some of the
increased usage of petroleum ink and makes some comparisons between the two runs problematic.
It is important to note that this extended make-ready was a problem with the paper that would
have occurred if soy inks would have been used first. An attempt was made, based on differences
in the amount of paper used during the two make-ready operations, to adjust the estimated
materials use and waste generation. Both unadjusted and adjusted results are presented.
20
-------
IN-PLANT MEASUREMENTS OF MATERIALS USE
The petroleum-based ink run required larger quantities of all four colors of ink than the soy-
based ink print run (Table 2). In total, 562.1 grams of petroleum inks were used compared to
382.9 grams of soy inks. The increased use of petroleum inks ranged from 26% for red up to 60%
for yellow. About 25% more petroleum ink usage would be expected because of differences in the
amount of paper printed during make-ready. For each color, petroleum ink usage was more than
25% greater which indicates that less soy inks were required for an equivalent print job even after
compensating for differences in the number of pages printed. On average, without adjusting for
make-ready differences, almost 47% more petroleum inks were used.
TABLE 2. QUANTITY OF EACH INK USED DURING THE PRINT JOB
Ink Color
Black
Blue
Red
Yellow
Ink Type
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Ink Used(g)
241.8
162.7
124.8
79.5
109.7
87.1
85.8
53.6
Ink Used(g)/100
sheets •
3.8
3.2
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.1
The amount of each color of ink used per 100 sheets of paper printed is also shown in Table 2. On mis' basis
about the same amount of each type of red ink was used. For the other colors, 18.8% more black, 25% more blue and
27 % more yellow petroleum ink was used. In total, 17 % more petroleum inks were used when compared on a per page
printed basis (8.89g/100 sheets versus 7.58g/100 sheets for the soy inks).
An important factor that influences the amount of waste generated per unit of production is the length of the print
run. Some uses of ink (and resulting wastes generated) in the printing process at OPS are fairly consistent between print
21
-------
jobs. For instance, the amount of ink required to coat the rollers and plates for each revolution is relatively consistent,
although it does vary somewhat with the viscosity of the ink. A certain amount of waste is expected for every print job, but
a higher proportion of waste is produced per page printed on shorter print jobs, such as the one monitored here. With
longer print jobs, a greater percentage of the ink is used to fill the ink trays and coat the various rollers compared with the
amount applied to acceptable product (USBPA, 1990)
The amount of blanket cleaners used is shown in Table 3. Almost 46 % more blanket cleaners were
used during the petroleum ink run (3,455.4 grams compared to 2,368.0 grams). Some of this difference can be
attributed to the longer make-ready required. Blanket cleaners were used during the extended make-ready with
petroleum inks. It was not possible to directly measure tow much additional cleaners were used for that
purpose during the printing run and that amount would not be directly proportional to the amount of paper
printed. The amount of blanket cleaner used during make-ready was not recorded separately from that used
during press cleaning at the end of the print run. Therefore, an equivalent comparison can not be made
between the amount of blanket cleaners used for each print run.
TABLES. QUANTITY OF BLANKET GLEANERS USED DURING EACH PRINT RUN*
Ink Type
Petroleum
Soy
Cleaner
V120
Clean Quick
V120
Clean Quick
Initial Weight (g)
3450.3
4921.4
3471.9
4988.0
Final Weight (g)
1681.6
3234.7
2330.7
3761.2
Cleaner Used (g)
1768.7
1686.7
1141.2
1226.8
*Data are given for the whole print run, not for individual units (colors). . '
. At the end of each printing run roller cleaners were used to clean up the presses. Differences in the
amount of paper printed during make-ready did not affect the amount of roller cleaners used. However, the
operators cleaned the press more thoroughly at the end of the soy ink run. The amounts of each roller cleaner
used for each color and type of ink are shown in Table 4. Overall, about 30% more roller cleaners were used
22
-------
for the soy inks. The only instances in which more cleaners were used for the petroleum inks were with RBP#2
on the red and yellow stations.
TABIJE 4. QUANTITY OF ROLLER CLEANERS USED AT EACH PRESS UNIT FOR THE
PETROLEUM AND SOY INK PRINT RUNS
Ink Color
Black
Blue
Red
Yellow
Ink Type
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
RBP #1 (g)
40.1
78.8
44.8
75.7
29.5
97.9
35.1
40.3
RBP#2(g)
31.0
43.5
34.5
56.2
75.8
19.7
96.6
"
84.9
MK(g)
12.4
27.9
33.8
52.1
19.5
24.9
61.5
71.5
At the end of the petroleum ink run the ink in two of the stations was not changed. .Also, since the .
same colors were going to be used in the next run, each press was not cleaned as thoroughly as they were at the
end of the second run with soy inks. Since at the end of the soy ink run more time and effort was'taken to
clean each color station, it is not surprising that about 30% more roller cleaners were used. Both inks appeared
to require approximately the same amount of cleaners and effort to remove from, the presses. In typical
practice, the amount of cleaner usage for the two inks would be expected to be about the same on average.
A summary of results of the in-plant measurements taken is given in Table 5. These results are without
adjustments for differences between the two runs. The results from the four print stations are combined to
show the cumulative differences in material use between the two runs. Also shown is the weight of solids on
die clean-up rags after they were dried. Initially it was intended to weigh the amount of waste on the rags in
the press room. Due to rapid evaporation it was not possible to determine a constant wet weight of the rags.
As noted earlier, the rags were placed in plastic ziplock bags for transport to die Hazardous Materials
23
-------
Laboratory for drying and weighing. The waste in rags and wash up trays at the end of the two runs cannot be
compared on an equivalent basis due to differences in make-ready and the extra clean-up effort at the end of the
second run.
TABLE 5. INKS AND CLEANERS USED AND WASTE PRODUCED
FOR THE PETROLEUM AND SOY-BASED INK RUNS (g)
Parameter
Total Inks Used
Total Cleaners Used
Total Blanket Cleaners Used
Total Roller Cleaners Used
Dried Solids Waste in Rags
Liquid Waste in Wash-up Trays
Petroleum Print
Run
562.1
3970.0
3455.4
514.6
575.4
663.8
Soy Print Run
382.9
3041.4
2368.0
673.4
' 356.7
604.5
LABORATORY RESULTS OF VOLATILE CONTENT
Based on results of the laboratory analysis of solids in the inks (Table. 6) and cleaners (Table 7) •, all the
inks had less than 6% volatile components and there were significantly less volatile components in the soy-based
inks than in the petroleum-based inks (p 97% volatile components (Table 8). The RBP #1 cleaner contained about 88% volatile
components.
Based on these laboratory results and the amount of inks and cleaners used as shown in Table 5, the
amount *of solids and volatiles in the inks and cleaners was calculated. These results for each type of ink are
24
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE SOLID AND VOLATILE
COMPONENTS IN THE INKS USED
Ink Color
Black
Blue
Red
Yellow
Average
Petroleum-Based Ink
% Volatiles %
4.1
4.7
4.2
5.3
4.6
Solids
95.88
95.26
95.76
94.68
95.40
Soy-Based Ink
96 Volatiles %
0.17
0.10
<0.01
1.6
0.77
Solids
99.83
99.88
100.10
98.40
99.55
shown in Table 8. Due to differences in make-ready and cleanup, comparisons between the two inks can not be
made using these data. The main point of these data is that for each type of ink most solids (almost 90%)
originated from the inks while over 99% of the Volatiles originated from the cleaners. With petroleum inks
TABLE 7. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE SOLID AND VOLATILE
COMPONENTS IN THE ROLLER AND BLANKET CLEANERS USED
Cleaner
RBP#1
RBP#2
Mix
V120
Clean Quick
Type
Roller
Roller
Roller
Blanket
Blanket
% Volatiles
88
>99
>99
98
100
% Solids
12.1
0.07
0.56
1.98
<0.01
about 99.4% of the Volatiles were from the inks. For the soy inks, over 99.6% were from the inks. In longer
print runs a greater percentage of volatiles would typically originate from die inks. :
AIR EMISSIONS
The total mass of air emissions was estimated by assuming that it was equivalent to the volatile content
of the materials used. This worst case assumption was made because of the impracticality of directly measuring
the amount of emissions from the many sources on the press, the printed papers and the waste containers. It
25
-------
TABLE 8. SOLID AND VOLATILE CONTENTS OF INKS AND CLEANERS USED
FOR THE PETROLEUM AND SOY-BASED INK RUNS (g)
Parameter
Ink Solids
Cleaner Solids
TOTAL SOLIDS
Ink Volatiles
Cleaner Volatiles
TOTAL VOLATILES
Petroleum Print
Run
537.17
64.78
601.95
24.93
3905.22
3930.15
Soy Print Run
371.36
48.64
420.00
11.54
2992.76
3004.30
was not practical to enclose the press, there were several other operating presses nearby, and air flow patterns
in the room would likely bring some emissions from the other presses into the Miller press area. Ultimately
most, if not all, the volatiles in the inks and cleaners will either evaporate, be discharged to the water or be
containerized and sent to a landfill. These emissions will partially occur at the print shop, perhaps after
shipment of the printed product, and at waste management facilities. The proportion of volatilization that will
occur in any one place will vary by how the waste materials are managed. On an equivalent basis there were
0.39g/100 sheets printed of volatile emissions from the petroleum inks compared with 0.23g/100 sheets with the
soy inks.
LIQUID WASTES
The washup tray wastes and inks cleaners on used rags are die two main liquid wastes from the
printing press. None of these materials were spilled during the two runs. The ultimate fate of these wastes
may not be to the water environment depending how they are managed. As described earlier, some of the
components may continue to volatilize during storage or handling. Their final disposition may either be to a
landfill, an incinerator or an industrial laundromat.
26
-------
The practice used to clean the various rollers and blankets was to saturate several rags with each
cleaner. These rags were used to wipe down the press. As a result, the rags contained a highly volatile
mixture of inks and cleaners. Some of these cleaners and inks ended up in ihe washup trays in undeterminable
proportions. Rather than measuring the rapidly changing amount of liquids on the rags immediately at the end
of the print run, the rags were dried and the amount of dried solids on the rags was determined gravimetrically .
The results were shown in Table 5. About 61 per cent more solids were on the rags used to clean the presses
after the petroleum ink run. Since more inks and cleaners were used in the print run that used petroleum inks,
it appears that much of these materials ended up on the cleanup rags. Since most of the solids came from the
inks, a comparison can be made based on an equivalent number of pages printed. With petroleum inks 9. Ig of
solids per 100 sheets printed were generated compared with 7.1g of solids per 100 sheets with the soy inks.
This is about 28% more solids with the petroleum inks. '.
The amount of liquids hi the washup trays from this study was measured directly at the end of the print
runs. These results were given in Table 5. Almost 10 per cent more liquids were generated hi the washup
trays from the petroleum ink run. The composition of this liquid was a mixture of inks and various cleaners.
The proportion of each ink and each cleaner that ended up in these trays versus the rags (less the amount
evaporated and on printed product) could not be measured.
The amount of each cleaner used to saturate the rags was not metered out precisely by the various press
operators. There is considerable variability in the amount of cleaner used for the same job even by the same
operator with the method employed at OPS, Differences between the two runs in the amounts of cleaner used
were due to variability when pouring cleaners on the rags and not due to the type of ink being cleaned.
SOUD WASTES
The petroleum-based ink run was done first, and 1375 waste sheets were generated during make-ready
of that run. The reverse side of 100 waste sheets were reused during make-ready for the soy ink print run.
27
-------
This is the amount of solid waste generated directly during these print runs. Additional solid wastes that may
be generated in printing include trimmings and excess number of pages printed to compensate for losses that
may occur during folding, binding and any other final preparation steps. The amount of these wastes would not
be affected by the type of ink used. In this case the difference hi make-ready waste was due to problems with
moisture in the paper at the beginning of the print run and not due to more difficulty with using the petroleum
inks.
Press alignment and ink metering was automated for the press used hi this study. Based on
observations of manually operated presses at this and other facilities, automation or efficient press set-up results
in less solid waste being generated during printing than does the choice of inks. Once operators are familiar '
with the use of either the petroleum or soy inks, then the amount of solid waste generated during make-ready
will not be noticeably different. la both cases more waste paper might be generated on some jobs due to
difficulties in obtaining acceptable colors or other print quality factors. • In this regard, neither ink appears to
have a clear advantage over the other.
COST COMPARISON
Cost factors that could be considered in comparing two options can be divided into four categories.
These are: (1) direct costs such as materials, direct labor, utilities, equipment, and insurance; (2) indirect or
hidden costs including monitoring expenses, reporting and record keeping, and permit requirements; (3) future
liability costs such as remedial actions, personal injury, and property damage; and (4) less tangible costs such as
consumer response, employee relations, and company image (American Institute for Pollution •Prevention,
1993). In this study the' mam. factor considered was the cost of raw materials. For all the other factors, there
were either no measurable differences between the two types of inks used or they were not easily quantifiable.
No equipment expenditures were required by OPS to switch from using petroleum to soy inks. The difference
in the amount of labor involved hi the two print runs was due to the problems with paper at the beginning of die
first run and the fact that cleanup was more rigorous at the end of the second run. This difference was not due
28
-------
to the type of ink being used. Operating conditions of the press, such as temperature and speed, were the same
for each ink so there was no difference in overall rate of production or utilities used because of the type of ink
used. Insurance, monitoring requirements, reporting and recordkeeping, and permit requirements are the same
for each type of ink. Any differences in future costs for remediation of waste disposal sites would be
negligible. Health insurance costs might favor the use of soy inks because of reduced employee exposure to
volatile chemicals. All the quantified cost factors are for the Miller TP 104 press only and not for the entire
facility at OPS.
Since there are little to no perceived or real differences in most of the above factors, the less tangible
benefits of using soy inks (company image as being environmentally friendly, improved employee relations due
to a healthier working environment, and customer preference for products) are.major factors considered by
printers. If customer response to quality of product is negative, printers will not adopt a new ink. At OPS,
their experience has been that customers find the quality of the product to be acceptable and many prefer to
have their job printed with soy inks. A printing company also must consider the willingness of its press
operators to switch to and use soy inks. At OPS there was. some resistance to change at first. Formulations of
soy inks in sheet-fed offset presses were new. In the past few years these formulations have improved and the
press operators at OPS have gained the experience necessary to produce high quality images. Presently, the
employees prefer to use soy inks on this particular press. A major reason for this is that the soy inks are very
similar to work with and clean. If an alternative cleaner was used that took the operators longer or required
more effort for the soy inks then there would be considerable resistance and cost. Some operators of old
presses at OPS are not as accepting of the soy inks.
Typically the cost of soy inks is about 10% more than for petroleum inks. The purchase price of the
raw materials (inks, cleaners and paper) for this print job at OPS does not vary by type of ink. However, costs
do vairy when the amount of materials that were used for printing with petroleum inks is compared to the cost of
materials for printing with soy inks. The average purchase price for both the soy inks and petroleum inks is
29
-------
about $8.00 per pound (or $0.018 per gram). Actual costs, depending on the color and current price, range
from about $4.00 to $12.00 per pound. The difference in the amount of ink used for acceptable product
adjusted for differences in make-ready was 440.1 grams of petroleum ink versus 375.3 grams of soy ink. This
gives an overall savings in ink used for die soy ink print run of $1.16. If the cost of soy ink had been 10%
more, then printing with the soy inks would have cost about $0.50 less. This cost difference is not a major
factor in ink selection. Labor, materials such as paper, equipment amortization, and utilities are higher costs.
The portion of total printing costs from use of inks is usually very small.
The purchase prices of the cleaners are as follows: Clean Quick, $6.26/gal; V-120, $7.66/gal; RBP
#1, $13.00/gal; RBP #2, $11.81/gal; and mix* $2.45/gal. When adjusted to the amount of acceptable product
printed, the difference between cleaner costs for the petroleum and soy ink runs for this print job was only 5
cents (Table 9). This difference would have been greater if cleaning after the petroleum-based ink run had been
more thorough.
DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL WASTE REDUCTION OPTIONS WITH AN OFFSET PRESS
There are two additional strategies or approaches that printers might use to reduce wastes from the
sheet-fed off-set printing, both of Which may involve additional capital input for equipment. One strategy is to
recover or reuse waste inks and cleaners that are produced. A solvent still could be used to recover chemicals •
from the washup tray wastes and possibly reuse those chemicals in formulating cleaners. Some large printers
have reportedly adopted this approach. A second strategy is to reduce wastes produced by decreasing the excess
amount of cleaners and inks used. Automatic blanket washers and automatic ink roller train systems reportedly
can reduce material use and resulting volatile chemical emissions and liquid wastes.
Literature from Baldwin Graphics Products (Stamford, CT), one manufacturer of this equipment,
claims that as little as 220 - 275 ml (8-10 ounces) of cleaning solvent can be used during a print run when the
automated systems are in use. While this does not eliminate the need for hand cleaning, it does greatly reduce
30
-------
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED COST OF CLEANER USED FOR EACH PRINT RUN AT OPS
Ink Type
Petroleum
Total
Total
(acceptable product)
Soy
Total
Total
(acceptable product)
Cleaner
V-120
Clean Quick
RBP#1
RBP#2
Mix
V-120
Clean Quick
RBP#1
RBP#2
Mix
Cost, $
3.38
2.64
0.48
0.70
0.09
7.29
5.71
2.18
1.92
0.95
0.60
0.13
5.78
5.67
the amount of cleaner required, and thus the emissions from the cleaners. Automated systems can also reduce employee
exposure to potentially harmful substances. The print run monitored here required from 3.193 to 3.83 L of cleaners from
start to finish. Thus,- an automatic blanket washer could reduce cleaner use by about 90 per cent. Plus it could provide
more controlled use of cleaners compared with the large variability inherent with manual cleaning. It should be noted that
on some presses where these systems have been installed the operators actually increased use of the cleaners because even
during a print run the blankets can be cleaned without stopping the press. Automatic ink handling systems allow mis type of
press to be operated with as little as 16 ounces of ink in the fountain, as opposed to 2.2 L (80 ounces) used without the
automated system. That would result is about 80 per cent less ink usage. . • • .
• The automatic blanket washer and ink handling systems also reduce make-ready and cleanup times,
saving the press crew time and exposure to volatile compounds. Based on calculations performed by Baldwin
Graphic Products, automatic blanket washers can save an estimated $37,777 per year with a return on.
31
-------
investment of 2.26 years. Table 10 gives an estimate of the potential annual operating cost savings, of utilizing the system
on the Miller TP 104 press operation at OPS. Most of the savings would be expected in the cost of cleaners and in reduced
cleanup time.
The differences between die manual system and the automatic blanket cleaner are estimated to be: 6oz of cleaner
for manual system versus 2oz of cleaner for the automatic blanket cleaner, and an average wash time of 6 minutes for
manual system versus 2 minutes for the automatic blanket cleaner. The 6oz and 6 minutes are estimates which were
determined by OPS based on the average ounces of cleaner and time that it normally takes to wash the blankets.
The solvent cost in the calculation was $8.00 since this is the cost of the solvent which is recommended to be used
with the automatic system. For bom systems it was assumed mat mere were 150 blanket washes per day based on 6
blankets on the Miller TP104 press and these were washed an average of 25 times a day. • •
TABLE 10. ANNUAL COST COMPARISON OF UTILIZING AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHERS
Cost Factors ($) Manual System Automatic Blanket Washer
Annual Costs
Solvent $ 20,530 $ 6,845
Rags 2,740 8,760
Time 90,340 60,225
Total 113,610 75,830
Other factors to consider in evaluating the economic benefits of automatic systems include capitol costs
of the equipment, depreciation, and taxes. These factors can be evaluated in a simple analysis of payback
period .as shown in Table 11. One important factor not included in this analysis is operating costs for utilities
and maintenance. Thus, the estimated payback period could be approximately 4 years. Factors at other printers
could greatly reduce the payback time such as if installing such systems would eliminate the need to install
pollution control equipment.
32
-------
TABLE 11. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AUTOMATIC BLANKET WASHER AT OPS
Annual Savings (Manual - Automatic) $37,780
Installed Cost or Investment $85,320
(Capitol Cost of Equipment)
Annual Fixed Costs 8,532
853
Depreciation (10% of investment)
Taxes and Insurance (1% of investment)
Net Savings (Annual Savings - Fixed Costs) • 28,395
Net Savings After Taxes (48 % Tax Rate) 14,765
Cash Flow (Net Savings After Taxes + Depreciation) 23,297
Payback Period In Years (Investment/Cash How) 3.66
33
-------
SECTIONS
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The initial quality assurance project plan for this project had as the overall goal to quantitatively
evaluate the amount of waste reduction (volume and toxicity) to all environmental media, and the economic
factors, resulting from the use of soy ink and alternative cleaners in cooperation with the Office of Printing
Services (OPS). At the time this project was conceived, the use of soy-based inks was novel and alternative
cleaners were in die initial stages of development. Modifications have been made with respect to the original
project plan because of changes made in the materials used by OPS between the initiation of the project and the
actual data collection, and because of project design evaluation. OPS now uses the' same cleaners for .both soy-
based and petroleum-based inks. Therefore, it was not possible to test different cleaners for each type of ink.
Also, the original plan included testing the two types of inks and cleaners on two presses. That experimental
design would have .involved collecting data on four separate print jobs, each printing identical text on each side
of a document. As it turned out, only one suitable print job came up during the time frame of this project.
Although significant modifications were made with the project design, efforts were made to ensure that
the quality assurance objectives established for this project were not compromised. The specifications outlined
in the quality assurance project plan were followed with respect to sampling and analytical procedures,
instrument calibration, internal quality control checks, and data reduction, calculation, validation, and reporting.
Table 12 gives an overview of the quality assurance objectives approved by USEPA for this specific project.
34
-------
TABLE 12. QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
Measurement Precision Accuracy Completeness Instrument Range
parameter detection limit
Mass 90% O.lg 0 - 12Kg
<. 1 g ±10% 90% -110%
^.Ig ±10% 90%-110%
Data collected at the Office of Printing Services were mass measurements made on a Sartorius
electronic balance (capacity 12kg +. 0.1 g). After transport from the Hazardous Materials Laboratory, the
balance was calibrated using the internal calibration function and checked with Class S weights prior to
commencement of data collection. Field samples were recorded on sheets with identifying data including date,
press unit/station, ink type, ink color, and data recorder's initials. .
The solid components in each ink and cleaner were measured at the Hazardous Materials Laboratory
using a modification of test method number AS1M D 2369, the Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings (ASTM1991). Three to four subsamples from each sample collected were analyzed and data were
reported with a mean +_ Relative Standard Deviation. Field samples were collected and recorded on a field
sampling custody record which accompanied the samples through to completion of the analysis. The data were
reviewed by the Laboratory Manager prior to release to the Principal Investigator.
35
-------
REFERENCES
American Institute for Pollution Prevention. 1993. A Primer for Financial Analysis of Pollution Prevention
Projects. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC
ASTM. 1991. Annual book of AS1M standards. Volume 6.01 Paints - Tests for formulated products and
applied coatings. Standard test method for volatile content of coatings ASTM D-2369. p. 326-328.
Brewer, R. 1971. An Approach to print. Blandford Press, London.
Cooke, L. 199L All-soy ink splashes.into print. Agricultural Research 33:10-12.
Evanoff, S.P., K. Singer, and H.J. Weltman. 1988. Alternatives to chlorinated solvent decreasing - testing,
evaluation and process design. General Dynamics. Fort Worth, TX.
Ferris, F. 1992. Formulas for safety. American Printer 209(l):68-9.
Harbin, N. no date. Soy Ink: A Publishers Renewable,-Recyclable, Environmentally Friendly Alternative.
Col Pub: 14.
Hayes, M.E. 1988. Naturally derived biodegradable cleaning agents: terpene-based substitutes for
halogenated solvents. Petrofenn Inc. Fernandina, FL.
Mazerall, D.L. 1987. An economic alternative to the use of chlorinated and chloroflurocarbon (CFC) solvent
and the electronic metal cleaning industries. Third annual Hazardous Materials Management Conference -
West. Long Beach, CA, December 1987.
Petersen, D. Cleaner inks. American Printer 209(5): 30-33.
Sanchez, R. 1993. Agriculturally-based Ink Usage. National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, Inc.
1987
Scarlett, T. 1992. Inks getting a bad environmental rap. American Printer 209(3):81.
Serafano, American Soybean Association, 1991. St. Louis, MO. (pg. 6)
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Waste Minimization in Metals Parts Cleaning. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Report EPA/530-SW-89-049.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Commercial Printing
Industry. Office of Research and Development Report EPA/625/7-90/008.
36
-------
APPENDIX
Table A-l. Results of laboratory analysis of cleaner samples to determine % solid components using
modified ASTM method D-2369 38
Table A-2. Results of laboratory analysis of ink samples to determine % solid components using modified
ASTM metb.odD-2369 38
Table A-3. Quantity (g) of RBP #1 cleaner used at each press unit for the petroleum and soy ink print
runs 39
Table A-4. Quantity (g) of RBP #2 cleaner used at each press unit during the petroleum and soy ink print
runs • 39
Table A-5. Quantity (grams) of the mix cleaner (H20, alcohol & lactic acid) used at each press unit during.
the petroleum and soy print runs . . . 40
37
-------
*• ^
TABLE A-l. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CLEANER SAMPLES TO DETERMINE
%. SOLID COMPONENTS USING MODIFIED ASTM METHOD D-2369
Cleaner Trial 1
RBP #1 12.1
RBP #2 <0.01
Mix 0.35
V120 2.65
Clean Quick <0.01
Trial 2 Trial3
12.1 12.0
0.28 <0.01
0.58 0.78
1.51 2.27
<0.01 <0.01
Trial 4
-
<0.01
0.52
1.50
-
Average
12.1
0.07
0.56
1.98
<0.01
% Std. dev.
5.7
13
32
29
0
TABLE A-2. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF INK SAMPLES TO DETERMINE
% SOLID COMPONENTS USING MODIFIED ASTM METHOD D-2369
Ink
Petroleum Based Black
Petroleum Based Blue
Petroleum Based Red
Petroleum Based Yellow
Soy Based Black
Soy Based Blue
Soy Based Red
Soy Based Yellow
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
97.25 94.60 95.78
94.93 95.03 95.83
94.37 94.55 99.12
95.09 94.81 94.15
99.71 100.3 100.0
100.0 99.45 100.2
99.72 100.7 100.0
97.26 98.76 97.57
Trial 4
96.87
-
95.01
-
99.31
-
-
100.0
Average
95.88
95.26
95.76
94.68
99.83
99.88
100.1
98.40
% Std. Dev.
1.4
0.5
2.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
1.3
38
-------
•i. & +
\
TABLE A-3. QUANTITY (g) OF RBP #1 CLEANER USED AT EACH PRESS UNIT FOR THE
PETROLEUM AND SOY INK PRINT RUNS
i Ink Color
; Black
1
i Blue
j Red
i Yellow
TABLE A-4.
1
Ink Color
i
Black
; Blue .
: Red
i YeUow
Ink Type
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Initial Weight (g)
864.6
824.5
852.0
807.2
894.1
745.7
944.4
909.3
Final Weight (g)
824.5
745.7
807.2
731.5
864.6
647.8
909.3
869.0
Cleaner Used (g)
40.1
78.8
44;8
75.7
29.5
97.9
35.1
40.3
QUANTITY (g) OF RBP #2 CLEANER USED AT EACH PRESS UNIT DURING THE
PETROLEUM AND SOY INK PRINT RUNS
Ink Type
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Petroleum
Soy
Initial Weight (g)
767.6
736.6
696.1
661.6
843.4
693.1
754.3
657.7
Final Weight (g)
736.6
693.1
661.6
605.4
767.6
673.4
657.7
572.8
Cleaner Used (g)
31.0
43.5
34.5
56.2
75.8
19.7
96.6
84.9
39
-------
TABLE A-5. QUANTITY (grams) OF THE MIX CLEANER (HA ALCOHOL & LACTIC ACID) USED
AT EACH PRESS UNIT DURING THE PETROLEUM AND SOY PRINT RUNS
40
------- |