PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE SCREEN
RECLAMATION PRODUCTS FOR SCREEN PRINTING
i by
Abt Associates, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Contract No. 68-D9-0175
Work Assignment No. 2-21
Project Officer
i
Paul Randall
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
NATIONAL RISK MANAGE]\IENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
-------
CONTACT
Paul Randall is the EPA contact for this report. He is presently with the newly organized National
Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Sustainable Technology Division in Cincinnati, OH
(formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory). The National Risk Management Research
Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and is now responsible for research conducted by
the Sustainable Technology Division in Cincinnati.
-------
NOTICE
i • „ . . ,
. ^
This document summarizes the information collected from printers who voluntarily
participated La this project to evaluate alternative screen reclamation chemicals. These
evaluations were conducted as demonstrations under the variable conditions of production.
The results reported hi this document ^re, hi large part, subjective and relied on the
experience and judgement of the printers; who used these alternative products.
This report has been subjected tojU.S. Environmental Protection Agency peer and
administrative review and approved for [publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use. This document is intended to provide printers with information
on the performance and cost of alternative screen reclamation products. Compliance with
environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the responsibility of each individual
business and is not the focus of this report.
. This effort has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-D2-0175, Work Assignment 2-21.
11
-------
FOREWORD
i.
i
Today's rapidly developing and Changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly
dealt with, can threaten both public healih and the environment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 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 suppprt and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to
perform research to define our envirohrnehtal problems, measure the impacts, and search for
solutions. I
I. '
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide
an authoritative, defensible engineering I basis in support of the policies, programs, and
regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic
substances, solid and hazardous wastes, Superfund-related activities, and pollution
prevention. This publication is one of ihe products of that research and provides a vital
communication link between the researcher and the user community.
The cost and performance summaries presented in this report, in conjunction with risk
estimates, are essential information for printers to use when selecting products that are safer
for employees and the environment. Associated risk estimates were calculated as part of the
overall Design for the Environment (DfE) Screen Printing Project and are presented in the
project report titled, Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA), EPA document
EPA744R-94-005. Since variables such as ink type, substrate printed, volume, and
equipment are different hi every print shop, a product that is efficient and cost effective for
one facility, may not be the right choice jfor another shop. With these variations hi mind,
this document presents the results of the performance demonstrations of several alternative
screen reclamation products and the associated costs, without ranking or comparing any of
the products. The information on performance is largely qualitative and is based on the
opinions of the printers who used these substitute products hi then* facilities for one month.
Using the information presented hi this report, the printer can then estimate what products
are likely to be successful in his/her particular facility.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
I .
l
This project evaluated environmentally-preferable products for the screen reclamation
process in screen printing during month-long demonstrations at 23 printing facilities
nationwide. Through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Design for the
Environment Printing Project, printers, the EPA, reclamation product manufacturers, and
the screen printing trade association worked together to evaluate alternatives to the hazardous
chemicals commonly used during screen1 reclamation. A total of ten "product systems"
(which include an ink remover, a stencil jor emulsion remover, and a haze remover) were
voluntarily submitted by manufacturers for evaluation. Additionally, one individual ink
remover, and two substitute technologies |were demonstrated.
1 -
Performance, cost, and risk were evaluated for each alternative chemical system. The
portion of the project documented in this report includes the performance characteristics and
the costs. The risk assessment information is available in the EPA project document, titled
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA), EPA document EPA744R-94-003.
j
Performance was evaluated hi tWo phases: (1) laboratory testing to ensure the
products were generally effective, and j(2) in-field demonstrations to evaluate product
effectiveness hi a production situation. In general, most emulsion removers worked very
well, but the success with the ink and haze removers was mixed. Costs of switching from
a baseline reclamation system to an alternative system were estimated based on the cost of:
chemicals, the labor time to reclaim the| screen, rag use, and waste disposal. Fourteen
facilities would realize reduced costs for screen reclamation by switching to an alternative
product. The other nine facilities would experience increased costs.
I ...
i
Two alternative technologies were also evaluated. Using the first technology, a high
pressure (3000 psi) water blaster, the quantity of chemicals needed and the tune required for
reclamation were reduced. Based on limited, preliminary demonstrations, the second
technology evaluated, a sodium bicarbonate spray, may have potential for reclaiming screens
used for printing with solvent- or water-based inks.
r
This report was submitted hi partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-D2-0175 under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and it covers a period from
December 16, 1993 to September 30, 1993.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Notice j • . ii
Foreword 1 iii
Abstract I . . iv
Vll
List of Tables
Acknowledgements '....! viii
i
I: Introduction j 1
i
II: Background on Screen Printing . j. 4
Screen Printing Process ! . 4
Screen Reclamation . . . .[ 4
Environmental Concerns Associated with Screen Reclamation 5
i • • • •
III; Performance Demonstrations and Costing Methodology 7
Performance Demonstration Methodology 7
Laboratory Testing Methodology 7
Field Demonstration Methodology 8
Alternative Technologies Methodology 9
Costing Methodology j. . . 10
i
IV: Characterization of Participating Facilities 14
Products Printed ; 14
Size of Facilities i 15
Acceptance of Alternative Products 15
V: Characterization of Products Demonstrated 16
Alternative Product System Submittal Procedure 16
VI: Performance and Cost Results . . .j 17
Explanation of Variability hi Results 17
Product System Chemical Formulations 19
Baseline Screen Reclamation ...'..... 23
Product System ALPHA ......! 24
Performance hi the Laboratory 24
Summary of Performance ait the Volunteer Facilities 25
Product BETA . ...;.... 29
Performance hi the Laboratory . 29
Performance at the Volunteer Facility 29
Product System CHI ....... .j 33
Performance hi the Laboratory 33
Summary of Performance ajt the Volunteer Facilities 34
Product System DELTA .j 37
-------
Performance in the Laboratory 37
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities . . . . . 38
Product System EPSILON . . . . j . 41
Performance in the Laboratory 41
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities 41
Product System GAMMA i. 45
Performance in the Laboratory 45
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities 45
Product System MU i 49
Performance in the Laboratory 49
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities 49
Product System OMICRON-AE . | 53
Performance in the Laboratory 53
Summary of Performance a*t the Volunteer Facilities 54
Product System OMICRON-AF .;.... 57
Performance in the Laboratory 57
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities 58
Product System PHI i 61
Performance in the Laboratory 61
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities . . 61
Product System ZETA '••.-• 65
Performance in the Laboratory . 65
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities 66
| .
Alternative Screen Reclamation Technology THETA 71
Summary of System Theta Performance Evaluation 71
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Reclamation Technology 75
Sodium Bicarbonate Reclamation Technology Application Method . . 75
Summary of Sodium Bicarbonate Technology Performance Results . . 76
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Technology Potential 77
i ' '
APPENDIX A: Facility Background Questionnaire 79
APPENDIX B: Observer's Evaluation Sheet 89
APPENDIX C: Ink Remover Evaluation Sheet for Printers 95
APPENDIX D: Emulsion Remover Evaluation Sheet for Printers 96
APPENDIX E: Weekly Follow-up Call Log . . . 97
APPENDIX F: Methodology Used in the jPerfomance Demonstrations 99
APPENDDC G: Methodology for SPTF Performance Demonstrations 106
APPENDIX H: Participating Manufacturers 110
APPENDIX I: Volunteer Facility Profiles'and Performance Details Ill
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1: Alternative Reclamation Systems: Manufacturer Pricing . . . .
TABLE 3.2: Determination of RCRA Hazardous Waste Listing
TABLE 4.1: Number of Employees in Screen Printing Facilities
TABLE 6.1: Chemical Composition of Alternative Reclamation Systems . . .
TABLE 6.2: Categorization of Reclamation Chemicals for Use in Alternative
Product System Formulations
TABLE 6.3: Product System ALPHA Performance
TABLE 6.4: Cost Analysis for System ALPHA
TABLE 6.5: Product System BETA Performance .
TABLE 6.6: Cost Analysis for Alternative BETA
TABLE 6.7: Product System Cffl Performance
TABLE 6.8: Cost Analysis for Alternativje Cffl
TABLE 6.9: Product System DELTA Performance
TABLE 6.10: Cost Analysis for Alternative DELTA
TABLE 6.11: Product System EPSELON Performance
TABLE 6.12: Cost Analysis for Alternativje EPSILON .
TABLE 6.13: Product System GAMMA plerfbrmance
TABLE 6.14: Cost Analysis for Alternative GAMMA
TABLE 6.15 Product System MU Performance
TABLE 6.16: Cost Analysis for Alternative MU
TABLE 6.17: Product System OMXCRONi AE Performance
TABLE 6.18: Cost Analysis for Alternative OMICRON AE
TABLE 6.19: Product System OMICRONi AF Performance
TABLE 6.20: Cost Analysis for Alternative OMICRON - AF
TABLE 6.21: Product System PHI Performance
TABLE 6.22: Cost Analysis for Alternative Pffl .
TABLE 6.23: Product System ZETA Performance
TABLE 6.24: Cost Analysis for Alternative ZETA
TABLE 6.25: Alternative Reclamation Technology THETA Performance . .
TABLE 6.26: Cost Analysis for High Pressure Washer THETA
11
13
15
21
23
26
28
31
32
35
36
39
40
43
44
47
48
51
52
55
56
59
60
63
64
68
70
73
74
Vll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared under 1 the direction of Paul Randall for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office | of Research and Development, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Pollution Prevention Research Branch, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
i
Several diverse groups worked together to make this project possible. The
contributors include the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Design for the
Environment staff, particularly Kathryn Caballero, Stephanie Bergman, and Jed Meline, and
the Screen Printing Association International (SPAI), particularly Marcia Kinter and Dan
Marx. The performance demonstrations would not have been possible without the help of
the screen reclamation product manufacturers who donated their products. These
manufacturers, listed below, can be contacted through the information given in Appendix H.
J
Amerchemj Wood Dale, EL
Autotype Americas, Schaumberg, IL
Ciot International Services, Whippany, NJ
Franmar Chemical JAssociates, Normal, IL
Hydro Engineering, ;Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Image Technology, Inc., Anaheim, CA
KIWO, Seabrook, TX
Nichols and Associates, Burnsville, MN
Ruemelin Manufacturng, Milwaukee, WI
i
i
The role of the printing facilities iwho volunteered their time to demonstrate tide
alternative products was essential to the success of the project. The efforts of these printers
were greatly appreciated:
Action Graphics, Louisville, KY
Artcraft, Portland, OR {
Burlington Graphic Systems, Union Grovej WI
Coburn Corporation , Lakewood, NJ j
Fastamps and Fasigns, Randolph, MA j
Gangi Studios, N. Hollywood, CA i
Gillespie Decals Inc., Wilsonville, OR j
Identification Products, Bridgeport, CT j
Ivey-Seright International, Inc., Seattle, WA
Karagraphic, Kent, WA
Leading Edge Graphics, Minnetonka, MN
Masterscreen Products, Portland, OR
M&M Displays Inc., Philadelphia, PA
Mobius, Inc., Eugene, OR
Modagraphics, Rolling Meadows, IL
Morrison & Burke, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
Nameplate & Panel, Carol Stream, IL
Paramount Screen Print, Milwaukee, WI
Philadelphia Decal, Philadelphia, PA
Phillips Plastics Co., Fredonia, WI
Quantum Graphics, Redmond, WA
Royal Label, Boston, MA
Screen Process Specialist, Plymouth, WI
I Vlll
-------
SECTION I
I
INTRODUCTION
i <
The Screen Printing Performance Diemonstrations summarized in this report provide
critical information on the performance of alternative screen reclamation products and
technologies for the Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Project. One goal of the
DfE Printing Project is to encourage printers to use risk and hazard information, along with
performance and cost data, to make informed, environmentally-sound decisions about the
chemicals and processes they use. This nbn-regulatory, voluntary project is a cooperative
partnership between the EPA, the Screen Printing Association International (SPAI), printers,
and manufacturers of printing supplies. A$ one of the initial tasks for this project, industry
representatives prioritized certain processes as the focus for exploration of environmentally
preferable alternatives. In screen printing, Iscreen reclamation was selected as the focus area
for the DfE project. Screen reclamation is |a cleaning process where ink and the print image
are removed from a screen so the screen can be reused for another job. It is a three step
process where the ink, the stencil (or emulsion), and any remaining stain (known as "haze")
are removed sequentially. Typically a different product is used for each step, and in this
project the three products (ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze remover) are referred
to as a product system. i
i • ' • :
In support of the EPA Office of RJesearch and Development (ORD), the DfE staff
within the Office of Pollution Prevention ;and Toxics (OPPT) conducted the Performance
Demonstration portion of the DfE Printing jProject. The performance of substitute products,
voluntarily supplied by manufacturers, was evaluated under both laboratory conditions and
by printers under actual production conditions. This performance information was an
essential element of the complete analysis iof the product systems, which is documented in
the Cleaner Technologies Substitute Assessment (CTSA). The CTSA integrates performance
data with information on the costs and risks, evaluated in a separate effort, associated with
the products demonstrated. Because all products .were evaluated following the same protocol
hi a neutral forum, the CTSA provides i printers with a more complete assessment of
alternative products than has otherwise been available from one source.
4
When printers consider alternative'chemicals, performance of the product is often
their primary concern. This report summarizes the performance data collected during
performance demonstrations with alternative screen reclamation products carried out between
January and April 1994. The data collected include information such as, time spent on
screen reclamation, volume of product used, and appearance of the screen after reclamation.
In addition to the data collected during demonstrations in printing facilities, laboratory
demonstrations were also conducted at the Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF).
-------
The intent of the SPTF evaluations was toj assure that the product systems sent to printers
would provide an acceptable level of performance. Additionally, the SPTF evaluations
provided another set of observations with which to compare in-facility demonstration results.
In-facility demonstrations were designed toj last one month and were undertaken so that the
long-term effects of the product systems' could be evaluated under actual production
conditions at printing facilities. It should be noted that the performance demonstrations were
not rigorous scientific investigations. Instead, much of this document reports the printers'
experiences with and opinions of these products as they were used in production at their
facilities. •
! '
In addition to performance information, the costs and risks for each of the substitute
.product systems were evaluated. The risk information is too extensive to be included in this
document, but can be found in the CTSA. j The cost estimate for each reclamation system
included the cost of: labor time spent to reclaim the screen, the average quantity of
reclamation product used, the rags used, and the hazardous waste disposal for RCRA-listed
chemicals. To compare the costs of the substitute systems to a known system, a baseline
was established using a traditional solvent-based screen reclamation system. The traditional
system used in the comparison consisted of lacquer thinner as the ink remover, a sodium
periodate solution as the emulsion 1 remover, and a xylehe/acetone/mineral
spirits/cyclohexanone blend as the haze remover. These chemicals were selected because
screen printers indicated they were commpnly used in screen reclamation. For all cost
estimates, it was assumed that the chemicals were applied manually to 6 screens per day,
each 2,127 in2 (approximately 15 ft2) in siie. It is important to note that the costs of the
alternative products are compared to the baspline product system and not to the actual system
currently in use at the facility. A baseline was selected to obtain the most useful arid
consistent information. Comparing the demonstrated products to each facility's current
product would have been highly inconsistent because of the range of products in use at the
volunteer plants. Additionally, such a comparison would not be representative of printers,
because these facilities volunteered to assist in identification of environmentally preferable
products, which may indicate that they are more concerned and aware of environmental
issues than the average printer. For example, several of the facilities were already using
products that were nearly identical to the products being demonstrated. With the variability
among the products currently in use by thejparticipating facilities, it was determined that a
comparison of the demonstration products to a baseline product would give printers more
useful information than a comparison to products currently in use.
j
A total of ten alternative screen (reclamation systems were submitted for the
demonstrations. Each product system was sent to two or three facilities in addition to the
testing done at SPTF prior to the on-site dejmonstrations. In most cases, the results for the
same product system varied somewhat from one facility to the next. For the ink and haze
removers the products generally received a better performance evaluation at SPTF than they
did in the field demonstrations. The performance of the majority of these products was
considered fair by the printers, however there are some exceptions where the performance
was consistently evaluated as good, both I at SPTF and at the printing facilities. The
performance of 8 out of the 10 emulsion removers submitted was very good. Both at SPTF
j
f .
12 -
-------
and at the facilities, the emulsion removers removed the stencil quickly and completely and
many of the printers wanted to continue using these products after the demonstrations were
over. i
I . '
Background on the screen printing process, screen reclamation, and the environmental
issues associated with the industry are described in Section n. Details on the demonstration
methodology used during laboratory tests at SFTF and during field demonstrations at printing
facilities are given in Section m. Section IjV describes the printing facilities that volunteered
their plants for the demonstrations. A general description of the types of products submitted
is given in Section V. For each product system, the SPTF testing results and the facilities'
evaluation of the products are summarized in Section VI of this report.
The summaries in Section VI provide a description of the product performance and
the cost summary for each product system,j but do not rank or endorse any product systems.
As the printers involved in this project pointed out, the specific operating conditions of a
print shop (e.g., ink type, mesh count, drying time) can influence the product performance
significantly. For this reason, selected facility characteristics are also detailed in the Section
VI evaluations. It should be noted that the trade names of the products are not used in this
report nor were they given to individuals involved in performance demonstrations. Instead,
the chemical formulation of each product is listed in Table 6.1 at the beginning of Section
VI. Using the descriptions of product performance in conjunction with the chemical
formulations table (Table 6.2), printers can determine which product system(s) they think
would be most suitable for their facility.! Once that determination is made, printers can
contact their distributors, inform them of the type of product they are looking for (based on
the chemical composition), and ask for a recommendation on such a product system. A list
of the participating manufacturers is given
telephone numbers and contact names
so printers can also directly contact these
manufacturers if they prefer. For more information on the risks associated with each product
system, the printer should refer to the EPA's CTSA Screen Reclamation document.
in Appendix H of this report. The list includes
-------
SECTION n
I
..I
BACKGROUND QN SCREEN PRINTING
SCREEN PRINTING PROCESS I
! '
Most printing processes use an impervious metal, plastic, or rubber plate to transfer
an image to a substrate. Screen printing, however, does not use such a system; instead ink
is forced through the unblocked portion of: a porous screen onto a substrate. The image is
defined by a stencil which is adhered to the fabric screen. The finely woven screen mesh
is usually stretched tightly over a wooden pr aluminum frame which forms a shallow well
where ink is applied. Ink is placed on the screen and is pressed through the mesh with a
rubber blade (a "squeegee") onto the substrate. Ink will pass through the mesh and onto the
substrate except in the areas where the stencil has been applied. The screen is raised and
the printed substrate is either manually plkced on a drying rack or on a conveyor which
moves the printed material into a drying unit. As the printed substrate moves out from under
the screen, another substrate is put in its jplace. When the screen is lowered again, the
squeegee is drawn across the screen and the image is printed again on the next substrate.
i
Screen printing offers the printer more versatility than most printing processes in that
it can deposit ink at variable thicknesses,; including relatively heavy deposits, with high
quality pigments on almost any surface, regardless of size or shape. This variability in ink
thickness and print substrate allows the screen printer to print brilliant colors, and durable
products that can withstand harsh weather conditions (for outdoor signs) and laundering (f Dr
printed T-shirts). Substrates commonly used by screen printers include paper, paperboard,
plastics, glass, metals, textiles, and many other materials. Ink types used in screen printing
include solvent-based, UV-curable (ultraviolet curable), water-based, and plastisol inks. The
choice of ink depends on the substrate being printed and the equipment available in the
facility. This project focused on screen printers who print on plastic and vinyl substrates.
i ' „ , . .. ... .
Screen Reclamation
j
,'(•'•'••'
An imaged screen can be reused multiple times to print the same image or the stencil
can be removed so a different image can be applied. Removal of the image and ink from
the screen is called the reclamation process. Due to the high cost of the screen material ($25
- $45/yard for 40" wide mesh) and the labor required to replace a screen, most printers
reclaim their screens for reuse. According to a 1990 SPAI survey of the industry, 90.3
percent of screen printers reclaim screens daily. Screen reclamation techniques vary from
one facility to another, however, the three basic steps typically performed to reclaim a screen
are: ink removal, emulsion removal, and haze removal.
-------
Ink removal is the first step in reclaiming a screen. Generally, facilities scrape off
excess ink and chemically remove ink residue from the screen at the end of every press run,
regardless of whether the screen is to be reclaimed or reused with the same image. The 1990
SPAI Industry Survey found that 97.5 percent of the printers responding use an ink remover
daily. In most facilities, an ink removerj product is sprayed, poured, or wiped onto the
screen. The ink remover chemical and the ink are both wiped off or rinsed off the screen.
j. . .
Ink removal precedes emulsion removal (also called stencil removal) so that excess
ink does not interfere with the removal of j the stencil. The predominant emulsion removal
chemical in use today is sodium metaperipdate. It is sold either as a powder that is mixed
with water at the facility or in a water solution as a liquid. The liquid is typically sprayed
on the emulsion, rubbed in with a brush which loosens the stencil and is rinsed off with a
pressurized water wash. j
After the emulsion is removed, a haze or a "ghost" of the image may remain on the
screen. If the haze is dark enough, it may! act as a stencil by blocking the ink from passing
through the screen. A light image, called a ghost, will then appear on the substrate during
the next printing job. Haze may also interfere with the adhesion of the next stencil. The
haze is caused by ink or stencil that gets j caught in the areas between the overlap of the
screen threads or that is stained into thej threads of the screen. If a haze is visible or
suspected, a haze remover is applied before reusing the screen to avoid printing a.ghost in
the next print run. Haze remover is typically either a paste that is brushed onto the affected
area, or a liquid that is sprayed onto the scjreen and then brushed in. The chemical and the
haze are then rinsed off, typically with a high pressure washer. Haze remover chemicals aire
often caustics and can damage or weaker! the mesh if used excessively or if allowed to
remain in contact with the mesh for too long.
The ink remover, the emulsion remover, and the haze remover are sometimes sold
together as a screen reclamation "product system." For the Dffi Performance Demonstration
Project, manufacturers were encouraged j to submit complete product systems. When
purchasing a product system, as opposed jto buying the individual products, the printer is
assured that the products are designed to \york together and that there will be no chemical
incompatibilities between the system cbmponents. A total of ten product systems, one
individual ink remover, and two alternative technologies were evaluated by the Dffl Screen
Printing Project. j
I • .
Environmental Concerns Associated with Screen Reclamation
Screen reclamation was selected as the focus area of this project for several reasons:
I - - •
• Screen reclamation products often contain highly volatile organic solvents.
Depending on the amount of product used, federal, state, or local regulations
may limit the amount of volatile organic solvents used in the printing facility.
In order to meet regulator^ requirements and to protect the health of the
workers, many printers are looking for less volatile cleaners.
-------
• Wastewater from screen reclamation typically goes directly down the
drain. According to a 1992 survey by Screen Printing magazine (printed in
the April 1992 issue of Screen Printing'). 191 out of 250 companies (76
percent) reported they send unfiltered waste down the drain (to sewer or
septic). Ink, emulsion, and/or reclamation chemicals are likely to be in the
unfiltered rinse water which could lead to health and environmental problems
as the wastewater goes toja treatment facility, a waterbody, or a septic
system. i
• Confusion over products ithat claim to be "biodegradable," or "drain-
safe." Although a given product may itself be safe to rinse down the drain,
once it is mixed with ink or iemulsion, drain disposal may not be permissible.
Also, confusion surrounding the term "biodegradable" is widespread among
printers; each manufacturer, regulator, and printer may have a unique
definition for the term. It is important for printers to check their local, state
and federal water regulations prior to discharging such a product.
i •
The CTS A addresses these issues by presenting information on the costs and benefits
associated with different screen reclamation options, such as occupational exposure concerns,
cost differences, and performance effectiveness. The Performance Demonstration portion
of the project concentrated on evaluating and documenting the performance of the alternative
product systems. {
-------
SECTION m
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION AND COSTING METHODOLOGY
1
PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION (METHODOLOGY
I
Performance evaluations were conducted in two distinct phases: (1) the Screen
Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) evaluated each product system under controlled and
consistent laboratory conditions; and (2) yolunteer printing facilities nationwide collected
much of the same information, but did so under the more variable conditions specific to their
production runs. The testing methodology for both phases of the demonstrations was
developed by consensus with the involvement of EPA, SPAI, individual screen printers, and
manufacturers and suppliers of screen reclamation products and equipment. Due to the
numerous variables associated with screen reclamation, the work group agreed that a
rigorous scientific test of screen reclamation product systems would be difficult to develop.
The group decided that it would be preferable to rely on the seasoned judgment of screen
printers in evaluating the effectiveness of the alternative products. Additionally, the group
felt that a month-long demonstration at the volunteer facility was required in order to identify
the types of problems that occur only afterjrepeated uses of the product on the same screen.
For example, a product may cause gradual damage to the screen mesh that does not
immediately affect print quality and is not visually noticeable until after multiple applications
on the same screen. ]
i
' j ' .' •
Laboratory Testing Methodology j ,
The intent of the SPTF evaluations was to assure that the product systems sent to
printers would provide an acceptable level of performance. Screening at SPTF also provided
another set of observations to compare with in-facility demonstration results. At SPTF, each
product system was tested on three imaged screens; one with solvent-based ink, one with
UV-cured ink, and one with water-based jink. One of the most important aspects of the
SPTF methodology was that the evaluations were conducted under consistent conditions for
all screens (e.g., tension, mesh type, emulsion type, thread count, image). In addition, the
same technician conducted the evaluations for all product systems at SPTF. The technician
recorded the following information: amount of product used, time spent on each reclamation
step, level of effort required, and a qualitative assessment of product effectiveness and screen
condition. A complete description of the SPTF methodology and parameters used is included
in Appendix G. ' . i •
-------
Field Demonstration Methodology j
|
Each printer evaluated the effectiveness of one screen reclamation product system.
In most cases, the system included an ink remover, an emulsion remover and a haze
remover. The facilities were responsible for reclaiming up to 12 screens per week over a
thirty-day period utilizing the specified} product system and recording the product's
performance for each screen. (See Appendix F for the complete Facility Demonstrations
Methodology). j
I ......
SPAI recruited volunteer screen printers who print on plastic and vinyl substrates
from across the country. EPA and SPAIJ staff matched the submitted product systems to
volunteer printing facilities based on existing equipment, ink type, and current practices.
Most product systems were evaluated hi trto or three facilities to provide performance data
from different operating and ambient conditions. Prior to shipping product systems to
printers, SPAI repackaged products or removed identifying marks and brand names so that
those printers evaluating the products die! not know the manufacturer or product name.
Masked MSDSs and application instructioins were also developed and were shipped along
with the product systems to each facility, j
Prior to the start of the demonstrations, a project observer was assigned to each
facility. Observers were not EPA employees, but were drawn from the staff of Abt
Associates Inc. and its subcontractor, Radian Corporation. For each of their designated
facilities, the observer was responsible for collecting background information, visiting the
facility on the first day of alternative product use, following the facilities progress throughout
the demonstrations, and reporting the results. Before the observers scheduled their on-site
visits, each facility received a Facility Background Questionnaire (see Appendix A). The
data from the questionnaires were used forj several purposes. First, the questionnaires were
used to collect facility background information such as the number of employees, the
facility's system for tracking screens, andlthe types of products printed. This information
was used to help explain the different experiences of the two or three facilities who
demonstrated the same alternative system. Second, the facility's current application
procedures were reviewed to determine if they were similar to the application method
recommended for the alternative product. Where possible, the project attempted to minimize
changes in application techniques when switching over to the alternative product system.
This was done because it was assumed that screen reclamation employees would be most
receptive to new products that caused the least disruption of their normal routine. Third,
information was collected on the chemical composition of the facility's current screen
reclamation products to determine if there would be any incompatibilities between the
alternative products and the facility's standard products that had previously been applied to
the screen. In cases where the standard and alternative products were chemically very
different, the possibility of incompatibilities existed and may have influenced the product
performance. Cases where this could have occurred are noted in the text discussing
performance results in Section VI. i
-------
After the Facility Background Questionnaire was completed, alternative products were
shipped to the volunteer printing facilities. 'Before the facility could start using the products,
the assigned observer visited the plant. During the visit, the observer first explained the
goals of the project to all employees who might be using the alternative products. Next, the
observer watched one screen being cleaned using the current screen reclamation procedures
and recorded information about the current product system's performance on an Observer
Evaluation Sheet (see Appendix B). Then the observer explained the application techniques
of the alternative product system. The observer then watched the reclamation of three
different screens with the alternative products and recorded information on Observer
Evaluation Sheets. This routine allowed the observer to verify that the employees understood
how to use the alternative product system and how to record data on the alternative system.
Information collected on the Observer Evaluation Sheets included:
• Screen condition: screen size, thread count, mesh material, ink type and
color, emulsion type, number of impressions of previous run.
• Facility ambient conditions: temperature, humidity, ventilation.
• Reclamation procedures: application method used for ink remover, emulsion
remover, and haze remover.! drying time between each reclamation step.
• Product usage: quantity of product used, the time it took to clean the screen,
the effort required. !
• Screen inspection: effectiveness of each product, evaluation of print image
quality after reusing the screen.
After the observer's visit, the facility continued to use the alternative products for one
month. During this tune, facility staff recorded performance information on the alternative
product systems for up to 12 screen reclamations per week, using the Printer Evaluation
Sheets. Using evaluation sheets (see Appendices C and D), the printers recorded much of
the same information on product performance that the observers collected during their site
visit. The evaluation sheets for the printers, however, were less detailed to minimize the
printers' record-keeping burden. Forms wejre kept short and simple to increase the likelihood
that data would be recorded consistently and completely.
j .
To supplement the information recorded by the printers, each week, the DfE observer
telephoned the facility staff for an update |on the product system's performance. Through
these calls, the observer was able to determine if any changes were made in the way the
products were used, and if the facility was having any problems with the products. These
calls were documented in telephone logs (see Appendix E) and this information was used in
the descriptions of the performance results' for each facility presented in Section VI.
Alternative Technologies Methodology |
|
In addition to the demonstration of alternative chemical product systems, the DfE
Printing Project evaluated the performance of two alternative screen reclamation
technologies. These substitute processes rely on specialized equipment, and were, therefore,
-------
not demonstrated at SFTF. Instead, the observers travelled to facilities where the equipment
was available and evaluated the processes using criteria similar to those used by SPTF during
their tests of the alternative chemicals. The two technologies demonstrated were: (1) a high
pressure water blaster; and (2) a sodium bicarbonate reclaim system.
i
For both of these evaluations, anj observer brought three imaged screens to the
demonstration site. Once on-site, the observer applied ink to each screen. Solvent-based
ink was applied to one screen, UV ink to Another, and water-based ink was applied to the
third screen. The alternative technology was then used to reclaim each of the screens and
the observer recorded the same data as was recorded for the alternative chemical systems.
For the high pressure water blaster technology, testing was conducted at a printing facility
that was already using the required equipment in production. For the sodium bicarbonate
technology, the evaluations were done at the equipment manufacturer's facility, since it is
still a developing technology and is not in juse at any printing facilities.
COSTING METHODOLOGY I
j . - • ••
In general, the cost estimate for each reclamation method was composed of the sum
of four distinct cost elements: labor, reclamation products, materials, and waste disposal.
t
!
Labor - . j ..
I
The printer's staff time spent on each reclamation step (e.g., ink removal, emulsion
removal, haze removal) was collected or Estimated from various sources. The total time
estimate does not include collecting screens jfrom printing areas, waiting for product reactions
as might be specified in the manufacturers's application instructions, maintenance of
reclamation area, or handling of segregated waste materials. The labor cost was calculated
as the total time spent multiplied by (1) ihe average wage rate for screen reclaimers of
$6.53/hour (as reported in SPAI's 1993 jWage Survey Report for the Screen Printing
Industry') and (2) an industry multiplier of 2.01 (calculated from SPAI's 1992 Operating
Ratios Study) to account for fringe and overhead costs.
Reclamation Products !
|
The average usage per screen was (calculated for each product (i.e., ink remover,
emulsion remover, haze remover) used by a particular facility. Because of wide variations,
no attempt was made to average across facilities or product systems. For comparative
purposes, "normalized" average quantities were calculated by multiplying actual usage with
the ratio of the baseline screen of 2,127 in^ to the recorded screen size. Multiplying usage
with the unit cost of each product (proyided by each participating manufacturer and
summarized in Table 3.1) yielded the reclamation product costs. Costs associated with
special storage requirements for products were not considered in the cost analysis.
10
-------
TABLE 3.1
ALTERNATIVE RECLAMATION SYSTEMS: MANUFACTURER PRICING
Product
System
Alpha
Beta
Chi
Delta
Epsilon
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Omicron
Theta
Zeta
Ink Remover
$18.20/gallon
($850/55 gallons)
$15.10/gallon
$31.20/gallon
($1,315/55 gallons)
Emulsion Remover
-
$4.00/gallon
Ink remover only
$32.00/gallon
($438/15 gallons)
($1,238/55 gallons)
$20.00/gallon $32.00/gallon
($900/55 gallons) ($438/15 gallons)
($1,238/55 gallons)
$7.80/gallon $29.80/kg
$11.00/gallon
(25 liters/$72)
$7.80/gallon
(20 liters/$41 )
$3.50/kg
$10.40/gallon
(3 five liter units/$41)
$24.95/gallon $24.95/gallon
$13.40/gallon
($540/55 gallons)
No ink remover costs
Other costs: $5,170
$11.00/gallon
($530/55 gallons)
$21 .95/gallon
$23.00/gallon $23.00/gallon
•
•
Haze Remover
$10/kg
Ink remover only
$31.20/gallon
($1,315/55 gallons)
$20.00/gallon
($900/55 gallons)
$2.40/kg
$10.40/gallon
(25 liters/$62)
$37.80/gallon
(5 five liter units/$50)
$39. 95/gallon
No haze remover
Degreaser costs:
$10/gallon
($500/55 gallons)
$43.00/gallon
$30.00/gallon
11
-------
Materials (e.g.. rags, screens^
Rag use was estimated or recorded for the baseline and all substitute products. It was
assumed that rags were leased and laundered at a cost of $0.15/rag. Changes in the number
of application brushes between the baseline and substitute methods is considered
inconsequential.
Waste Disposal
Hazardous waste disposal costs werej assumed only if the reclamation products contain
RCRA-listed chemicals or if the products are defined as characteristic wastes due to their
ignitable nature (see Table 3.2). For each product system, hazardous waste generation rates
(in g/day for 6 screens), were estimated! by chemical engineers on EPA's staff. This
methodology does not consider the possible effect residual inks may have on the waste's
hazard classification. It also assumes that pther wastestreams at the facility are hazardous;
thus, the labor cost of training and managing hazardous wastes is not associated with screen
reclamation only. Given that filtration systems used to remove residual inks and reclamation
products from spent wash water (spent filters must be disposed of) may be required for both
baseline and alternative analysis. The analysis focuses on quantifying cost differences among
reclamation methods.
12
-------
TABLE 3.2
DETERMINATION OF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTING
Product
System
Ink Remover
Emulsion Remover
Haze Remover
Alpha RCRA characteristic waste
(ignitable)
Flashpoint - 101 °F/38°C
None
None
Beta
Chi
Delta
None
Ink remover only
None None
None
None
Ink remover only
None
None
Epsilon RCRA Listed waste !
(cyclohexanone - all other |
components qualify as listed [
under mixture rule). Also i
Characteristic waste (ignitable) i
Flashpoint = 46°C/115°F i
None
1:1 dilution with ink
remover. All components
qualify as hazardous waste
under mixture rule.
Gamma
Mu
Phi
Omicron
(AE&
AF)
None
RCRA Characteristic waste
(ignitable)
Flashpoint = 131°F/55°C
None
None
| None
i • -
i None
I
I
i
i None
| None
|
I
None
None
None
None
Theta
No ink remover
j None
RCRA Listed waste
(cyclohexanone - all other
components qualify as
listed under mixture rule)
Zeta RCRA Characteristic waste
(ignitable)
Flashpoint = 101°F/38°C
None
None
All information on flashpoint was gathered frolm masked MSDSs submitted by supplier. None of
the above information should be used for compliance purposes. None of the chemicals in these
formulations is listed as toxic characteristic contaminants and were not treated as such in the cost
analysis; however, printers should use the Tc-xicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to
determine the applicability of the toxicity characteristic to their particular waste stream.
13
-------
SECTION IV
i
CHARACTERIZATION OF PARTICIPATING FACILITIES
PRODUCTS PRINTED j
I
The cooperation of the volunteer printing facilities was essential in obtaining the
performance data for this project. The jparticipating printers were not intended to be
representative of the screen printing industry as a whole. They were, however, fairly typical
in the type of products produced. The DfJE project did limit participation to facilities using
plastic and vinyl substrates to reduce one [source of variability. Most of the participating
printers also printed on other media, such as paper, metal, glass, or ceramics.
i
The screen printing industry in the ljnited States can be divided into three major types
of facilities: j
i •
i
• Commercial screen printers: Commercial operations print garments, signs,
posters, decals, and banners j for commercial applications, commercial screen
printing shops are assumed io be the most prevalent in the industry.
• Industrial screen printers: Industrial screen printers print front panels,
circuits, glassware, and labels for original equipment.
• In-plant screen printers: Many manufacturing facilities have in-house screen
printing departments that are| dedicated to printing markings or decals for the
parts produced in that facility. Although they operate screen printing
equipment, their primary business is not screen printing, and they do not
classify themselves as screen printers.
i
The majority of the printers participating in the DfE Printing Project were
commercial screen printers. Because the in-plant screen printers are typically classified by
the products they produce, not by the processes they use to produce those products, it is
difficult to quantify the size of the screed printing industry in the United States. SPAI
estimates that there are at least 40,000 plants in the U.S. with screen presses, not including
in-plant operations or the majority of industrial screen printing operations. The 1990 SPAI
survey of the industry estimated that 55 jpercent of commercial screen printers print on
textiles. Graphic arts printing is another major category in commercial screen printing and
it includes such diverse products as point-of-purchase displays, posters, decals, and banners.
The types of products printed by the volunteer facilities is just as diverse as the range for the
industry as a whole. The most common i products of the participating facilities includes
labels, store displays, decals, panels, graphic overlays, nameplates, banners, signs, and fleet
graphics. I
' !
' - - • ! 14 .
-------
SIZE OF FACILITIES
Approximately 90 percent of the volunteer facilities had less than 50 employees,
which is consistent with the 1992 Screen! Printing magazine survey which found that 86
percent of the screen printing facilities ha
-------
SECTION V
i
|
CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODUCTS DEMONSTRATED
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT SYSTEM SUBMITTAL PROCEDURE
Manufacturers' cooperation in this project was essential to gather performance
information on as many alternative product systems as possible at the start of the project.
The Dffi project staff contacted all known manufacturers of screen reclamation products
designed for printers who use vinyl or jplastic substrates, and invited them to submit
alternative product systems. In addition to directly contacting manufacturers, the DfE project
team also encouraged product submittals through articles in trade magazines and
announcements at the annual SPAI convention and trade show. This is due, in part, to the
expectation that impending regulations may effect market availability and use of these
substances. The DfE Project Staff did not solicit those products containing chlorinated
compounds due to the scheduled phase-out
Air Act Amendments.
of many of these chemicals under the 1990 Clean
Prior to submitting their products,;manufacturers were informed that product trade
names would be masked throughout the demonstrations. Neither the volunteer printers nor
the DfE observers would know the manufacturer of the products being evaluated. Trade
names are not listed in the CTSA document or in this report. Product systems are only
identified by a generic formulation: a list of the chemical components associated with each
individual product (the ink remover, the emulsion remover, and the haze remover). These
formulations are presented in Section VI in tables 6.1 and 6.2.
16
-------
SECTION VI
'I
PERFORMANCE| AND COST RESULTS
EXPLANATION OF VARIABILITY E^ RESULTS
i
This section describes the product!systems' performance during the demonstration
project and the cost of each alternative system compared to a baseline system. For each
system, a description of the demonstration facilities is followed by the results from the
evaluation at SFTF, the details of performance at the volunteer printing facilities, and the
costs for each volunteer facility to switch from a baseline system to the system demonstrated
at their plants. A table is also included for each product system which provides summairy
statistics from the performance and cost of the system.
The information summarized in this section comes from five sources:
• SPTF evaluations where screens with different ink types (up to three types:
solvent-based, UV-cured, land water-based) were reclaimed with the
alternative product system; j
• Facility Background Questionnaires profiling printing and reclamation
operations of each site;
• DfE Observers Evaluation Sheets where the observer recorded information on
one reclamation with the current product system and up to three reclamations
using the alternative product system;
• Printers Evaluation Sheets \yhere the facility employees completed as many
as 12 observation forms per week for four weeks; and
9 Logs of the weekly follow-up calls made to each facility by the DfE
observers. i
I
Performance demonstrations were not scientifically rigorous but were subjective
assessments which reflected the conditions and experiences of the employees at two or three
individual facilities. As the printers involved in this project pointed out, the specific
parameters of a print run can influence product performance significantly. In several cases,
two facilities with similar operating parameters using the same reclamation products had very
different perceptions of the product performance. Among the reasons why the results of
performance demonstrations for one particular product system may differ from one facility
to another and/or from the SPTF results are:
0 Variability of screen conditions. Because performance demonstrations were
carried out during production runs!, many factors which affect the performance of
reclamation products were not controlled during the performance demonstrations
-------
including: age of screen, ink colorj, ink coverage, image size, ink type and drying
time prior to reclamation. j
• Variability of ambient conditions. Conditions, such as temperature, humidity,
and ventilation were recorded but nbt controlled during performance demonstrations.
Many screen printers reported that ambient conditions affect performance of the
products they use (e.g., temperature! and humidity effect on drying of ink on screens).
'• Chemical interactions with products used previously on the screen. Printers and
manufacturers have reported that chemicals previously applied to clean a screen can
affect the performance of products currently used to clean the screen. Product
systems are often designed for chemical compatibility during the screen reclamation
process; if another product is added to the product system that is chemically
incompatible, cleaning performance^ of the system may be affected. For example, if
a printer who has been using a variety of hydrocarbon solvents, such as acetone and
xylene for screen cleaning, switches to an alternative product to clean the screen, the
performance of the alternative systehi may be affected by a residue of hydrocarbons
on the surface of the screen. Testing may have been more effective if a new screen
was used, however, this was typically not the case in the performance demonstration.
In either case, the performance demjonstration may have been affected by (1) residue
chemicals on the surface of the screen or (2) the chemical "conditioning" of the
screen. i
I
• Variability of staff involved in performance demonstrations. During laboratory
testing, the same technician conducted all tests and recorded the results. At the
volunteer facilities, several differentjindividuals often conducted the reclamations and
recorded the data. Reclaimers' past experience also differs and can affect their
perception of performance. For example, a screen reclaimer who has only used
highly effective, and sometimes hazardous, ink removers may differ in their opinion
of "moderate scrubbing effort" from a reclaimer whose current ink remover
instructions call for several minutesj of scrubbing with a brush.
i ' " -
• Level of cleanliness expected by the facility. The DfE observers found that
different facilities could have veryj different opinions about the cleanliness of a
screen. At some facilities, a light haze is acceptable and it does not affect the quality
of future prints. Other facilities may requke that every screen look new after
reclamation. i
i
Where possible, the text summaries of product system performance in this section point out
where these factors may have contributed to disparate results among facilities evaluating the
same product system.
The inclusion of widely variable conditions across and within facilities and the short
duration of the performance demonstration's did not allow the results to be interpreted as
definitive performance assessments of the pjroduct systems. In addition, some facilities did
18
-------
not provide the full complement of observation forms for several reasons including:
unacceptable performance of the product system, personnel problems, insufficient volume
of products supplied, and, in one case, lost records of the performance demonstrations.
Based on the forms that were completed by the printers during the four week demonstration,
analyses were prepared for each product system, keeping each facilities' experiences with
that product system separate. A number of statistics correlations were attempted for each
facility but the results are not statistically significant due to small sample size. Correlations
included: j
• the effectiveness of ink removal compared with variables such as effort/time spent
on ink removal, ink color, number of impressions
• the condition of screen after emulsion removal step compared with variables such
as effort/lime spent on emulsion rejmoval, prior ink coverage
• the condition of screen after allj reclamation steps are complete compared with
effort/tune spent on haze removal, leffectiveness of previous steps
Where appropriate, these results are included within the text summaries of each
product system. Summary statistics, such as average amount of product used, are presented
in accompanying tables. I
PRODUCT SYSTEM CHEMICAL FORMULATIONS
•i . . '
One of the goals of this project Is to encourage printers to use risk and hazard
information to make more informed, environmentally-sound decisions about the chemicals
and processes they use. To accomplish this goal, Tables 6.1 and 6.2 provide printers with
the chemical formulations of the product systems demonstrated. Since product trade names
are not given, the printer must identify the! products by their chemical class. The first table
(Table 6.1) lists the formulation of each product system in generic chemical categories. The
second table (Table 6.2) describes the bhemicais which are included in each generic
classification. Using the chemical composition information in conjunction with the
performance summaries, printers can determine which product system(s) they think would
be successful in their facility. Once that determination is made, printers can contact their
distributors, inform them of the type of product they are looking for (based on the chemical
formulation), and ask for a recommendation on such a product system. A list of the
participating manufacturers is given in Appendix H of this report. The list includes
telephone numbers and contact names so printers can also directly contact these
manufacturers if they prefer.
|
In making a decision on which products to try, the printer can evaluate the laboratory
results, the field demonstration data, and the cost summaries. For more information on the
risks associated with each product system, the printer should refer to the EPA's CTSA
Screen Reclamation document. These products are referred to as "alternatives," however,
a printer can only evaluate the relative human health risks and the environmental impacts of
these products by reviewing the health and environmental risk information presented in the
CTSA. . . . | • .
! 19
-------
TABLE e.i
( . ' •
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF ALTERNATIVE SCREEN RECLAMATION SYSTEMS
Product
System . Ink Remover
Emulsion Remover
Haze Remover
Alpha Aromatic solvent naphtha
Propylene glycol series ethers
Sodium periodate
Water
Alkali/caustic
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol
Water
Beta 2-octadecanamine, N,N-
dimethyl-,N-oxide or a modified
amine from unsaturated soy
bean oil fatty acid
Water
Ink remover only
Ink remover only
Chi Diethylene glycol series ethers
Propylene glycol series ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Water
Diethylene glycoi series
ethers
Propylene glycol series
ethers
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Delta
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Sodium periodate
Water
,
Dibasic esters
Propylene glycol series
ethers
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Epsilon Cyclohexanone
Methoxypropanol acetate
Diethylene glycol
Benzyl alcohol
Diacetone alcohol
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Derivatized plant oil
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Water
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate salt
Sodium hydroxide
Derivatized plant oil
Water
Gamma Tripropylene glycol methyl ether j
Diethylene glycol butyl ether ;
acetate I
Dibasic esters i
Fatty alcohol ethers j
Derivatized plant oil
Sodium periodate
Sulfate salt
Phosphate salt
Other
Water
Sodium hypochlorite .
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfonate
Water
Mu Dibasic esters
Methoxypropanol acetate
d-Limonene
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Derivatized plant oil
Periodic acid
Water
Sodium hypochlorite
Alkali/caustic
Sodium alkyl sulfonate
Water
! (continued)
20
-------
TABLE 6.1 (continued)
Product
System
Ink Remover
Emulsion Remover
Haze Remover
Phi
Dibasic esters
Sodium periodate
Water
Ethoxylated
nonylphenol
Other
N-methyl pyrrolidone
Dibasic esters
Omicron Diethylene glycol butyl ether
(AE) Propylene glycol
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated
nonylphenol
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Other
Water
Omicron Diethylene glycol butyl ether
(AF) Propylene glycol
Sodium periodate
Ethoxylated
nonylphenol
Water
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
Phosphate surfactant
Alkali/caustic
Other
Water
Theta
None
Sodium periodate
Water
Alkali/caustic
Cyclohexanone
Furfuryl alcohol
Zeta
Propylene glycol series ethers
Sodium periodate
Water
Alkali/caustic
Propylene glycol
Water
21
-------
TABLE 6.2
I ' • '
CATEGORIZATION OF SCREEN RECLAMATION CHEMICALS FOR
j •
USE IN ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT SYSTEM FORMULATIONS
Category
Chemicals in Category
Alkali/caustic
Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide
Alkyl benzyl sulfonates
Dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid, triethanol
amine salt
Sodium salt, dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid
Aromatic solvent naphtha
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatic
Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic
Derivatized plant oil
Tall oil, special
Ethoxylated castor oil
Dibasic esters
Diethylene glycol series ethers
Fatty alcohol ethers
Phosphate salt
Propylene glycol series ethers
Diethyl adipate
Diethyl glutarate
Diisopropyl adipate
Dimethyl adipate
Dimethyl glutarate
Dimethyl succinate
Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Diethylene glycol butyl ether acetate
Alcohols, C8 - C10, ethoxylated
Alcohols, C12 - C14, ethoxylated
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Trisodium phosphate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether
Tripropylene glycol methyl ether
Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate
Ethoxypropanol
Ethoxypropyl acetate
Methoxypropanol acetate
22
-------
BASELINE SCREEN RECLAMATTONJ
| -
i
The system used to estimate baseljne costs was selected as it was assumed to be
representative of systems currently in use.) The baseline products used are:
Ink remover
= lacquer thinher consisting of:
30% methyl ethyl ketone
20% naphtha, light aliphatic
20% toluene
15 % n-butyl acetate
10% isobutyl isobutynaite
5% methanol
Emulsion remover
Haze remover
1.25% sodium periodate in water
10% xylenej (by weight)
30% acetonb
30% mineral spirits '
30% cyclohjexanone
For ink remover, time and volume information was taken from SFTF testing. An
average price for lacquer thinner was calculated from prices reported in the Workplace
Practices Questionnaire conducted by SPAI and the University of Tennessee. Time, volume,
and price information for baseline emulsion removal was taken from the Zeta system used
in performance demonstrations. Tune and yolume information for the four-chemical baseline
haze remover was not available from the performance demonstrations, and had to be
estimated based on the SPTF evaluation of! similar haze remover, resulting in a time of 11.5
minutes. A volume of 3 ounces for haze removal was taken from the application instructions
developed for SPTF. A price for purchasing this formulation in a 55-gallon drum quantity
was quoted by Ashland Chemical.
I 23
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM ALPHA
For Product System Alpha, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from tlhe volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the three volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Alpha was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product
system performance at each of the facilitiejs, see Appendix I.
I
Product System Alpha consisted ofi an ink remover, emulsion remover, and a haze
remover. The products were demonstrated at Facilities 8, 13, and 14. Facility 8 prints
labels, nameplates, and graphic overlays.j They reclaimed 48 screens over 4 weeks of
demonstrations using solvent-based inks and an indirect emulsion. Facility 13 prints store
displays, decals, and outdoor signs, and they reclaimed 13 screens using UV-cured and
solvent-based inks and a direct photo stencil during the 2 weeks they participated in the
demonstrations. Facility 14 prints metal nameplates, vinyl pressure sensitive decals, and
signs. They used solvent-based inks and a direct photo stencil during the three weeks they
used Product System Alpha to reclaim 36 screens.
t
i-
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Alpha was tested at SPTF on two screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, and one with a UV-cured ink). This product system is not recommended for use with
water-based inks. Performance of the product system was similar for both ink systems.
To apply the ink remover, the manufacturer recommends spraying the product on the
screen, and wiping up the dissolved ink anil solvent with an absorbent rag or cloth until the
ink is removed. On the screen with the jsolvent-based ink, the ink dissolved well with
moderate scrubbing. On the screen with jthe UV ink, the ink dissolved more easily and
minimal scrubbing was needed. Four wipes were used to clean each screen. The technician
noted that the ink remover had an unpleasant odor.
I
On both screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil with moderate scrubbing
effort, leaving no emulsion stain. There was a moderate ink stain remaining on the solvent-
based ink screen after emulsion removal, but the application of the haze remover removed
the stain completely. On the screen with UV ink, a light stain remained after emulsion
remover use, but the haze remover lightened the stain considerably.
The standard ink remover used at facility 13 is a proprietary blend consisting
primarily of tripropylene glycol methyl ether. Their emulsion remover consists primarily
of sodium periodate. Haze remover is used as needed (on approximately 50 % of the screens
reclaimed). Information on the chemical Composition of haze remover was not available.
Using their standard product, ink is removeid from the screen with a pressure wash, whereas
rags are used to wipe off the ink when using the alternative ink remover. The application
24
-------
procedure for the alternative emulsion and haze remover products are very similar to this
facility's standard application method. I
j .
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at all three of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the
section summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the
product tests performed at SPTF. |
i , .
j
Ink Remover: Facility 8 reported that the ink remover worked well most of the time,
but results were inconsistent and some extra scrubbing was required to achieve the desired
results. Performance was improved if the ink remover was sprayed on both the scrubbing
rag and the screen. The ink remover did not seem to work at all with epoxy inks. Facility
13 also reported that the ink remover required more time and scrubbing than their usual
product. Facility 14 reported that the ink remover worked as well as their usual product.
One screen reclamation employee at this facility reported that the ink remover worked
particularly well with their vinyl inks.
Emulsion Remover: At Facility 8, jthe emulsion remover worked satisfactorily only
if the screen was rinsed with hot water before applying the product. Facility 13 reported that
the emulsion remover did not work as efficiently as their usual product, taking more time
to dissolve the stencil and more scrubbing! even at full strength. Facility 14 reported that
the emulsion remover worked as well as their usual product and required less effort than the
regular product with the same positive re!sults. The only negative feature mentioned by
Facility 14 was that the emulsion remover (left a slight green tint on the screen, but this tint
was removed by the alternative haze remopr.
I
Haze Remover: The haze remover jperfbrmance varied between the three facilities.
At Facility 8, the haze remover removed the ink stain on most of the screens, however, it
did not sufficiently remove haze from about 20% of the screens. These screens had to be
cleaned again with their standard product. JFacility 13 thought that the haze remover did not
work at all, and required extra scrubbing and follow up use with their regular product.
Facility 14 initially reported that the haze j remover performance was average, but another
reclaimer said that it did not work as well! as their usual product.
25
-------
FORMANCE
ec
1
*4
^_
H
!J2
|_
0
i
w
cb
j
4
1-
C
(0
£
&•
(U
i
JO
W
H
1
k.
Performance fo
Each System
Component
Q) "O
III
4" »
TO
c
'E
£
0) ;=
en 1-
CB
§
to >_
Hfl
III
0)
.1 OJ
*~ 1 *-
•>. o "o
* 1 2
> OQ
"*
4^
1
Oa
1
E
(0
Ui
fl^<
I
S
ffi
{B
73
S
V?
Js!
3g
l&
O
cs
*3S
dj
JK
/ .v
..
— CD
C "5
O +j
'£3 CD
"O rf O
CO E •«
~O (^ ift
*- CO C
&?1 1
« _
0 II
oi £
8
CM
d „
-H S
0 II
r- 3
CO
1
CM
^" rf— fc
-H §
CO II
r- £
^
1
^
t
i
Haze was not
removed from
20% of screens.
1
CD
1
CO
c
LO
oi _
CO II
• ^
N
O
O
d _
•H«
q II
CO
£
LO
co
-H S
<- II
«- £
|
Q
f
5
'S. i» S w
1 111- IP
U. tO -Q CO .^ "^ Co
^
i 3
•£ o
5 °
; J£
"S *^
C CD
(D w
0 0
0 CD
£ "S
6 SJ
Q "J
"T O
o |
"U ^"
CO CO
•= N
CO <°
C -C
S-s
g •§ "o
•^ co i2
CO 4-i 3
O CO CO
CO
Removed the ink
but required extr
time and effort.
CD
2
O
•o
1
CO
c
£
q
00
•H u7
S *"
" c
8
00
d _
U) II
CN £
j=
q
PQ '
•« £
U) II
CD
i.
1
""
. ^^
1. <"
g « 0
i •i.-g
o co co
£ « *
r°
o JJ ° -a
-C l5 ^ CD
* O CO c
"§ -C °
3 | g «-
co * £ ja
2 -£ 5 §
3 15 ,£ ca
o co •<- "
0 "" £ m
CO CD CD >
§o -i «
CD ii ,2 O
S "8 w 1 g
•M -C o C
Hill
• co Q. • a.
1
* L? C . CO .
>«, ~± Q ^ _C (]3
*— *• _Q *J c
> — — CO 0) .j|
"g •- 2 ii 'i a
If 111!
•Ire
•— m «
1 °1
CO
c
£ P
o n
ui £
S
q
_u r**
-H CO
•4- II
•* £
CO
^
ai
CO
•H W
CO II
cd £
S
i
1
^
Removed stencil
easily.
—
1 "
^£
CO
c
'£
o
d _
0 "
ui £
N
O
d _
T- II
•* £
CO
en
C^
-H P:
O5 1s
% II
2 £
§
c
c
1
± -n
Haze remaining o
some screens hai
to be removed
with their
standard product
CD
CD ^p
•gl
CO
c
1
00
°f
CM II
ui £
8
q
q ^
CO
c'
£
CO
oi
-H 55
O II
ui £
*
—
i
CO
5
. CO- * *fc
^* ^ %N *^
i1 c ^ S> c f*-*
.t£ S a -jo S to
o -1 § |S-
<8 ,° O „ O „
u. Co jj ^ co U
fi1
1
c
I
I 26
-------
I
c
*:
§
u
^•*
co
CO
LLJ
CD
rf
1-
<
— ;
„ :
t;
J
"W •
f:
'.
'
\
t** :
*•;
4$'
"O" :
S;
•" *"•" :
,. :
_. :
_.
o
o
•o
CO
CO
co
JZ
05
1
D
O
CO
^1
'I
•o
CO
"5
CO
CO
_c
as
2
N
0
o
*~
CO
E
o
cB
^
Q
1
1
j,.
£
-------
TABLE 6.4
COST ANALYSIS FOR SYSTEM ALPHA
Description
.
Baseline Alternative System Alpha
Facility 8
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility Characteristics •
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
Cost Elements
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Waste Disposal
Totals
pef Screen
Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products
(min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
Total Cost/Screen
'
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
2,127 823
6 12.5
24.4 22.5
$5.33 4.92
3 1.1
$0.45 0.17
8.0 1.8
$0.22 0.21
3.5 1.0
$0.13 <0.01
3.0 1.0
$0.12 0.30
34 31
$0.02 0.02
^ ...
$6.27 5.62
$6.27 6.79
$9,399 17,574
$9,399 10,183
1,591
20
36.7
8.02
4.1
0.61
2.5
0.31
3.9
0.01
1.3
0.37
60
0.04
_ ,
9.36
9.37
46,800
14,062
1,577
12
15.3
3.34
0
0
4.4
0.53
4.1
0.01
4.0
1.18
59
0.04
5.10
5.92
15,313
8,886
*. Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline
scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between
the baseline and facility results. j
I
!28
-------
PRODUCT BETA
For Alternative Product Beta, this sbction describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstration, and also presents
two tables: one summarizes the performanqe results and the other presents costing data. For
information on the operating conditions ofj the volunteer printing facility where Alternative
Product Beta was demonstrated, see Appendix I.
i • • • .
Facility 12 used ink remover Beta jduring the performance demonstrations. Unlike
the product systems submitted by other manufacturers, the manufacturer of Beta supplied the
ink remover only. The facility used thej alternative ink remover Beta, along with their
standard emulsion remover and haze remover to reclaim their screens. During the
demonstrations, the performance of ink remover Beta was recorded for 17 screens with
solvent-based inks and a capillary film emulsion over a three week period. Facility 12 prints
graphic overlays, labels, and flexible membrane switches, and all products are primarily
printed on plastics.
Ink remover Beta was also sent to two other facilities who were not able to participate
in the Performance Demonstrations. Onej facility could not use the product because they
send all their screens out to be reclaimed; they only use ink removers as an in-process
cleaner. Since this project is intended to evaluate ink removers used for screen reclamation,
not for in-process ink removal, this facility did not participate. The second facility felt they
could not use the alternative products because of an on-going FJPA inspection. The printer
regretted not being able to participate, hoy ever, the FJPA was in the process of testing Ms
waste water, so he did not want to add any new chemicals to his waste stream.
Performance hi the Laboratory
Ink remover Beta was tested at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The manufacturer recommended
removing the ink by spraying the product directly onto the screen and wiping off the ink with
a clean rag. On all three screens, the technician reported that the ink dissolved well,
however a fair amount of wiping was required. For the screen with the solvent-based ink,
seven wipes were needed. Six wipes were {used on the UV ink screen, and eight wipes were
required to remove the ink from the water-abased ink screen. The technician noticed that the
ink remover affected the stencil image in the half tone area on all screens. The color of the
stencil appeared on the rag, which also indicated that the product was deteriorating the
emulsion.
Performance at the Volunteer Facility
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printer
using the alternative product Beta at the demonstration facility. The table at the end of the
section summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the
product tests performed at SPTF. I
\ 29
-------
Facility 12 felt the ink remover Beta sufficiently removed the ink from most screens,
however, it took a long time to remove the ink and the product left an oily haze on the
screen. In some cases, they reported ink iresidue or ink stains were also left in the mesh.
The oily film and the ink residue were bbth removed during emulsion removal and haze
removal steps, and all screens were reusable for all types of printing jobs.
Unlike all of the other facilities in the Performance Demonstrations, an observer did
not visit this facility to introduce them to the project and to the alternative product. This
lack of in-person guidance may have affected the results. During the first week, the printer
sprayed on the ink remover, rubbed it in with a brush and pressure washed the screen to
remove the ink. This application method was very messy and did not effectively remove the
ink. For the remainder of the demonstrations, the printer changed his application method
and used rags to wipe the ink off the screen. This second method removed the ink much
more easily, but took it took a long tune!(an average of 25 minutes per screen). Two or
three rags were used on each screen. While wiping the screen with the rags, the printer
noticed that the emulsion started to deteriorate. He also mentioned that he needed to replace
his filters on the ink removal sink waste water more frequently when using the alternative
product. j
I ' "
In reviewing the data, there did not appear to be any correlations between the product
performance and the screen conditions, however, the printer felt it was much easier to
remove wet ink and light colored inks, thaln dried on and black ink.
30
-------
111
O
z
S
fC
o
LL
s
g
ea
|
a
o
o-
in
(O
UJ
1
i
'«
i*!.1
'gf;
fi
$j
|;
?!
J*!
e;
gi
w :
ai
Jf =
•"*• :
*•*• :
/>••>•••
---!
v i
^ :
E
CD
.09
>•
W
CO
o
t:
o
Q.
CO
CO
•D
CD
<0
09
C
O
T3
O
*"* m
5 E >-
Ji '*= 'o
.£ ra c
-o § n
§ - « a
g " CO 3
£ -^ ~ !H
K 11 1
S
CO
s
T3
O
CO
C
'£
•HPJ
CM £•
N
o
LO
^
CM Y
^; c
CO
i
CM
CO
•H T-
0) II
wS
1
s
• 1
1 «l §.11
tO Q CQ S II
Ik CO *Q ^ GQ ''
,.
' :
_, ;
i
**i
1
l|
1
§;
2|
•• •• :
"o
c
CD
09
CD
•*->
•o
C
CO
T3
CD
CO
CD
C
CO
1
09
CO '
CO
rv
^ •
issolved well,
3d to deteriora
•o |
!s '5
i
CD
•o
O
CO
c
E
05
• 8
LO
CM
09
C
'E
LO
1
2
1
**
c _
iii
i
"o
c
B
CO
CO
.c
i
CO
CD
T3
CD
CD
C
CD
CO
CO
CD
2
CD
3 aJ
^2 S
issolved well,
3d to deteriora
"^ f
1 §
1
CD
09
.C
co
CD
N
O
LO
CM
CO
c
'g
LO
1
E
1
i
§
U> O
!§!
31
"8
I
c
CD
CD
g
CO
CO
oo
CD
CO CD
C tn
0 S
5'i
o -a
M O
.— 4-«
3 "°
_J- CO
12
Jl
O
SCO
JC
13 *-•
£ CO
s
CO
CD
O
CO
c
E
o
CM
8
q
CO
CO
c
£
LO
1
S
CC
•g
1
ill
-------
T>
COST ANALYSIS F
Description
IBLE6.6
OR ALTERNATIVE BETA
Baseline
(Without Haze
Remover)
Alternative System
Beta**
Facility 1 2
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2) 2,127
Average # screens/day 6
1,089
15
Cost Elements per Screen '
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Totals
Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and i
removing reclamation i 1 2.9
products (min)
Cost{$) $2.82
# of rags used 3
Cost ($) $0.45
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost {$)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost {$)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
'
29.4
6.43
2.2
0.34
4.2
0.50
1.8
0.06
.
34
$0.02
t f r <
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$3.63
$3.63
$5,446
$5,446
0
0
,..,
17.33
7.97
27,477
11,958
I ••••'•...
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs; however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
i .. , -
** The emulsion removal use and cost per screen were taken from performance demonstration
results for product system Zeta. i . '
32
-------
I •
PRODUCT SYSTEM CHI j
i • • •
For Product System Chi, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from jthe volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Chi was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product system
performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
|"
Product System Chi consisted of an ink remover and an emulsion remover. In place
of a separate haze remover product, the ink remover was reapplied to remove haze. A
degreaser accompanied this product system and was used by the facilities, however, detailed
information on the performance of the degreaser is not included in the scope of this project.
The performance of the product system was demonstrated at Facilities 3 and 21. Facility 3
prints decals and vacuum formed sheets; Facility 21 prints decals for glass and ceramics.
During the four week demonstration period, Facility 3 reclaimed 47 screens and Facility 21
reclaimed 48 screens. Both facilities used solvent-based inks during the demonstrations, and
Facility 3 used a dual-cure emulsion, while Facility 21 used a capillary film emulsion.
I
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Chi was tested at JSPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover
performance varied, depending on the type of ink used. Performance of the emulsion
remover and the haze remover was consistent for all three screens. All products were
applied according to the manufacturer's recommended application procedure.
On the screen with the solvent-based ink, there was considerable ink residue
remaining after spraying the screen with product, scrubbing with a brush, and rinsing with
a high pressure wash. The technician also' noticed that the stencil was beginning to peel off.
After repeating the ink remover application process, the ink residue was still present and
about half of the stencil had been removed. The ink dissolved more easily on the screen
with UV ink, however, after using the inkjremover, a gray haze remained on the screen, but
there was no noticeable ink residue and the stencil was intact. On the screen with the water-
based ink, the product dissolved the ink fairly well, however, a light ink residue remained
on the screen and the stencil began to peel off.
!
The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil with only light scrubbing on all
three screens, leaving no emulsion residue behind. On the screen with the solvent-based ink,
the heavy ink residue was still present after using the emulsion remover. When additional
ink remover was applied (used instead of a haze remover in this product system), it removed
the residue and lightened the stain. After using the emulsion remover on the screen with UV
ink, a moderate to heavy ink stain remainejd. The reapplication of the ink remover lightened
this stain considerably. On the screen with water-based ink, the ink residue persisted in
33
-------
I
some areas and there was a heavy ink stain1 on the screen after using the emulsion remover.
An additional application of ink remover lightened the stain, but did not remove it.
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer! Facilities
.....' I •
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF.
i ... - - . •
Ink Remover: The ink remover performance was considered satisfactory by Facility
3 and was considered good at Facility 21. At Facility 3, the alternative ink remover took
longer to solubilize the ink and required
more physical effort than their usual product.
Facility 21 reported that the Product System Chi ink remover worked very well on most of
their inks, but the alternative ink remover did not work as well with cover/flux ink or clear
cover coats. They have similar problems with their standard ink remover on the cover/flux
and clear coats. They also found additional! scrubbing was needed when using the alternative
ink remover on very coarse (low mesh count) screens. Overall, they described the ink
remover performance as good, but not quite as good as their standard product.
Emulsion Remover: The two facilities were both quite pleased with the performance
of the emulsion remover. Facility 3 reported the performance was as good as their standard
product. Facility 21 thought that the emulsion remover worked much better than their usual
product. Although it worked well on both direct and capillary film emulsions, Facility 21
found a little more effort was required to re|move the capillary film emulsions than the direct
emulsions.
Haze Remover: This system did' not include a haze remover. Instead, the
manufacturer recommended that the ink remover be used a second time as a haze remover.
After using the ink remover following removal of the emulsion, Facility 3 reported that an
image was still left on the screen and that, when used for haze removal, the ink remover did
not perform as well as their usual haze remover. At Facility 21, a haze remover was needed
on only one screen of the 48 screens reclaimed.
i 34
-------
1
C3
LIU
S
o.
1
UJ
H
£2
CO
|ui
w
A
O
£
CO
3
CO
1"
1
C
CO
c
Ji
^
P
w
g_
0)
rs
(Q
1
Performance for
Each System
Component
o -o
S o •§
0)
•g
0
o 8
CD •—
s"~
S
3
S'S 1
s g '•§.
> 3 B-
< a <
o
•— s*
oil o
C 3 3
'E1 £ Ti>
Is*
s
0
QB
i
1
&
(0
; M
\S
i£
'H
; =
;4g
:»*
: $
i JS
. G
i g
•'•53
: 2
• S
1
$
• JS
:,„,
'• f
f
.,
0
o
CO
£ «'
• E
T3 £ ~
CO *^
CO >
*- ^ o
CO C Q.
2 o -a
13 o '3
§ o -Q
CO CO CO
fil
O CD *
» C 5
= -^ co
< D- §
Dissolved ink wit
extra effort.
CD
S
CD
C
£
CO
CM
-Hg
co K
CD 3
g
0 _
•<- II
^J C
CO
C
'£
(D
co' „
CM II
cB
S -
S
1
t * a.
Removed stencil
easily.
o
£
'£
co
0 _
-Hg
TO II
CM S
g
o
-Hg
,- II
CM 3
CO
-C
CM
•H 0
in
sl
!B
i.
(t
1
1
CO
CD
D)
CO
•— a.
|
CO
c
1
co
d „
en II
CM 3
g
CO
d _
V- II
CM 3
CO
c
1 •
CM
d _
CM H
d 3
§
R
&
1
« A-g .IK
£ § 15 fi § i
if to •§ ^ § n
C
•c
Q.
CO
3
3
O
M—
"8
CO
3
^«
CD 13
0 -§
co' « .2
Q X >
•r
Removed stencil
.
'»
CO
2
CO
c
1
CMl
CM]
-H ^
in II
CM£
.|
g
•*
+1
in
<^
3
n
—
co
Cl
'§
co1
00 _
"H l£)
rv II
03
Q?'
|
1
«-
.§• 1
i= S
tn
Several
applications
needed to removi
haze.
CO
s
CD
O
CO
C
£
r>
d
-H CM
in II
• c
N —
O T-
o n ,
CM 3
CO
C
£ _
§1
1
Q
S
o?
CD
1
.g cb 'co co
CD te Cb *~
O "— 05 y c
CO (S "" ^ ° II
•5
s
CO
§
0
g
CO
s
73
•^
CD
4-1
U)
2
CO
£
C
^"
CD
X
CO
2
CO
T3
O
CO
C
'£
in
tv
1
0
o
£
*5
C
CO
C
1
in
1
o
i
u.
£
03
•
—
^
CD
CD
CD
=3
T)
"co
CD
C
•^
1
CO
•
'co
CD
CD
'o
C
CD
CO
•a
CO
>
o
a
0
CD
C
'£
m
co
N
O
O
CO
3
CM
i
Oc
Emulsion
f1
•5
w
c
'5
CO
"i
CD
D)
2
0
CO
C
'£
r>-
g
in
CM
CO
C
'£
o
1
S
Haze ft
jg
•o
1
C
CO
CD
CO
CO
C
CO
s
^
o
CD
N
CD
.C
^.
£
01
CO
o
J3
CD
"S
"o
a
0
CO
C
'£
o
g
o
CO
C
1
in
1
g
o?
1
u_
«
•
"co
CO
CD
"o
I
CO
T3
CO
"5
CO
CO
Q
0
CO
C
1
o
g
o
CO
1
CM
1
03
OC
g
CD
g
g
3
.
*s
CO
1
TJ
CD
C
CD
f
0)
2
0
CO
C
'£
o
g
o
to
C
1
o
1
oc
1
£
_c
~S
S
u.
•a
CO
CO
'o
s
•esidue.
^
*—
t-
O)
'-1
CD
2
CD
1
CO
C
£
in
g
o
CM
CO
C
in
1
R
0?
1
U.
S:
(0
15
*co
CD
*"
•M
*a
c
c
2
c
.«
1
CD
•
'co
CO
CD
'o
I
CO
"i
"o
CO
CO
5
o
CO
c
£
«-
g
in
CO
o
-C
CM
<
Cb
Oc
g
*
to
•1
CD
1
C
S
CO
c
T3
CD
C
CO
f
a>
3
o
CO
c
£
co
co
g
in
S
1
o
1
Cb
Haze ft
|
35
-------
TABLE 6.8
I
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE CHI
Description
, Baseline
Alternative
Facility 3
System Chi
Facility 21
Facility Characteristics 1
Averaae screen size (in2) 2,127
Average # screens/day 6
1,977
15
1,088
23
Cost Elements oer Screen :-
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying, j
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products 24.4
(min)
Cost ($)
# of rags used
$5.33
3
Cost ($) $0.45
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz
Cost ($)
,
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz
Cost ($)
) 8.0
$0.22
) 3.5
$0.13
) 3.0
$0.12
Amount (g) 34
Cost ($) $0.02
12.3
$2.69
1.2
0.18
1.1
0.21
2.1
0.07
2.1
0.39
0
0
8.0
$1.74
1.2
0.19
1.1
0.21
1.5
0.05
2.0
0.37
0
0
Totals '. ... .. .. ..-..- ?
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
. $9,399
-. . 3.55
3.89
13,312.
5,829
2.56
3.25
14,413
4,879
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline
scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between
the baseline and facility results. j
! 36
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM DELTA
For Product System Delta, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Delta was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product
system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Delta was demonstrated at Facilities 10 and 11, who both used UV-
cured inks. This product system consisted of an ink remover and an emulsion remover. In
place of a separate haze remover product, the manufacturer recommended that the ink
remover be reapplied to remove haze. A jdegreaser accompanied this product system aiad
was used by the facilities, however, detailed information on the performance of the degreaser
is not included in the scope of this project.j Facility 10 prints store displays and Facility 11
prints vehicle markings and pressure sensitive decals. During the demonstrations, Facility
10 reclaimed 17 screens (all with dual-cure emulsion) over a 3 week period and Facility 11
reclaimed 31 screens (with a direct photo stencil) over 4 weeks.
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Delta was tested at
SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover
performance varied, depending on the type of ink used. Performance of the emulsion
remover and the haze remover was more consistent for the three screens. All products were
applied according to the manufacturer's recommended application procedure. The ink
remover was sprayed onto the screen and the ink was removed with a pressure rinse. The
emulsion remover was also sprayed on and rinsed off at high pressure.
On the screen with the solvent-based ink, there was some ink residue remaining after
applying the ink remover. While scrubbing the screen to remove the ink, approximately half
of the emulsion was also removed. The results were similar on the screen with UV ink.
Moderate ink residue remained on the screen and some of the stencil in the half-tone area
peeled off while scrubbing. On the third screen (water-based ink), the ink residue was still
heavy after applying the ink remover. Again, some of the stencil was lost while brushing
in the ink remover. For this screen (water-based ink), the technician repeated the ink
remover application process, which removed most of the residue, but also removed most of
the stencil. Because two applications of i ink remover were needed, the quantity of ink
remover and the time it took to clean the iscreen were about twice as much for the screen
with water-based ink. |
The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil on all three screens, leaving no
emulsion residue behind. On the screen with the solvent-based ink, a heavy ink residue was
still present after using the emulsion remover. The haze remover, which is an additional
application of the ink remover in this product system, was then applied. It removed the
37
-------
residue, but an ink stain remained on the screen. Some ink residue remained on the screen
with UV ink after using the emulsion remover, but the haze remover (a second application
of ink remover) removed the residue, leaving a moderate ink stain. The emulsion remover
worked best on the screen with water-based ink. The stencil dissolved easily with only light
scrubbing. A small amount of ink residue remained, as well as moderate ink stain. A
reapplication of the ink remover removed the residue, but did not lighten the stain
significantly.
I
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
This section summarizes the produbt system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF. j
-1 - . . - ' _ -
i
Ink Remover: At Facility 10, the jink remover removed the ink efficiently on 67%
of the screens. On the other 33 % of the screens, a slight ink residue remained on the screen
after using the ink remover. Overall, thq performance of the ink remover was considered
fair, however, it required extra effort and it had a strong smell and the screen reclamation
employees thought it gave them headaches. Facility 11 had better results and they
considered the performance of the ink jremover to be very good. It consistently and
efficiently removed the ink from their screens under most conditions.
Emulsion Remover: The emulsion remover worked very well and both facilities
expressed an interest in continuing to use the product after the demonstrations were
complete. Facility 10 found the product worked best when diluted at one part emulsion
remover to one part water. Facility 11 used a dilution of one part emulsion remover to three
parts water. I
i ,
Haze Remover: Neither facility regularly documented the performance of the ink
remover used in a second application as a haze remover. Facility 10 used it a few times and
found that it did not remove the haze satisfactorily. On subsequent screens where a haze
remover was needed, they used their standard haze remover product. At Facility 11, the ink
remover and emulsion remover cleaned the screen well enough that a haze removal step was
not needed. I
38
-------
O)
ra
for
uir
CM
w in
ai
« *«•
OC u>
£
00
o
o
I 39
-------
i
TABLE 6. 10
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE DELTA
Description
Baseline Alternative
Facility 1 1
System Delta
Facility 10
Facility Characteristics
Averaae screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2.127 5.292
6 5
7.767
8
f •
Cost Elements oer Screen '
Labor
Materials
Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (mir
Cost {$)
and # of rags used
Equipment _ ...
Cost ($)
•
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost {$)
Hazardou
Waste
Disposal
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
s Amount (g)
Cost ($)
i) 24.4 12.3
$5.33 $2.69
3 0.0
$0.45 0.0
8.0 7.7
$0.22 0.99
3.5 8.0
$0.13 0.28
not
3.0 used
$0.12
34 0
$0.02 0
30.9
$6.76
6.5
0.97
9.9
1.27
8.6
0.30
1.0
0.13
0
0
JFotate
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27 3.96
$6.27 3.28
$9,399 4,953
$9,399 4,917
9.43
7.66
17,675
1 1 ,489
* Normalized values adjust product usage; number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per day under the baseline
scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows a comparison between
the baseline and facility results.
i
40
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM EPSILON j
i
i
For Product System Epsilon, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Epsilon was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product
system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
i
Product System Epsilon consisted of an ink remover, emulsion remover and haze
remover. It's performance was demonstrated at Facility 20 and Facility 24. Facility 20
employs approximately 10 people and prints mainly banners and displays. Facility 24
employs 15 - 20 people in their production area with 4 employees involved in the screen
printing operations of their business. They print pressure sensitive labels and Lexan face
plates. Over a thirty-day period, Facility 20 reclaimed 48 screens and Facility 24 reclaimed
16 screens using Product System Epsilon. Both facilities used solvent-based inks, and
Facility 24 also used UV-cured inks. Facility 20 used a dual-cured emulsion and Facility 24
used a direct photo stencil.
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Epsilon was used at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and the third with water-based ink). Performance of the
products varied depending on the ink type' tested.
The ink remover dissolved the solvent-based ink well and was easy to use. A light
grey haze was left on the screen. On the; screen with UV ink, the ink dissolved quickly,
wiped off easily, rinsed clean of residue, put left a moderate ink stain. When used on the
screen with water-based ink, more time and effort were needed to remove the ink which
seemed to dry in the screen. With the extra effort, the ink was removed except for a light
ink stain. For each of the three screens, one rag was used to remove the ink. The
technician noted that the ink remover had an unpleasant odor, but that it was not very strong.
• s
On all three screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil with some scrubbing.
The remainder of the stencil came off easily with the pressure wash. There was no emulsion
stain or residue on any of the screens. On |the screen with the solvent-based ink, a moderate
ink stain remained after using the emulsion remover. The UV ink screen and the water-
based ink screen had light stains. On all! the screens, the haze remover lightened the ink
stain, but did not remove it completely; a light ink stain was still visible.
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
j_ ^ ....
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
41
-------
performed at SPTF.
Ink Remover: There were somej differences between the two facilities in their
evaluations of the performance of Product System Epsilon. Facility 20 found the ink
remover was effective, but it took longer jto breakdown the ink than their standard product.
Facility 24 had very good results with thp ink remover. They felt it worked as well as the
products they had used previously and they were using less product per screen. The ink
remover worked well on both UV and solvent-based inks, but the UV ink was easier to clean
than the solvent-based ink. |
Emulsion Remover: The alternative emulsion remover performance was very good
at both facilities. The two facilities reported that the performance was even better than their
standard products; it dissolved the stencil quickly and easily.
Haze Remover: Both facilities tt ought that the haze remover performance was
acceptable, and in most cases, it worked as well as their other products.
42
-------
ance
Each Sysu
Compo
Q.
>•
a
-Q
£'
to — ss co
Q'i<:5
*: • o
Removed i
but took s
extra time.
i
2
3
O
O
co' ri
COl.S
«
_» £
"C ^
CO, Q. £
p!§£
•g
T3
o
g
q
co
=-13
Is
HI 09
O
c
CO
c!
co II
co S
Lightened
stain.
2
CD
•o
•H co
O II
data
Easily
stenoi
1
f. II
co 3
CM II
•t S.
CM
CM
•a
I
Usual
haze.
-H
o>
o
g
to
6
10
H
ii
en size
296 in2
in
1
O)
c
•5
CD
Q.
C
3
O>
S
•D
1
a
c
3
-Q
i
lve
Q
I
Li
I
a>
CM
(0
O
to
g
10
1
in
1
in
o
2
«i
S >-S
(0 3 J
1
J
o> S
43
-------
TABLE 6.12
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE EPSILON
Description
Baseline
Alternative System
Epsilon
Facility 20
Facility 24
Facility Characteristics '•••'•" •:-.'•• ' :,.'' ••'..-:.- J..-.^ ":^' '\^^;^r.-'--^.l^. .-•:• -••-.':. :: ••:'".'•'• ' •
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
2,538
8
1,296
1
• Cost Elements per Screen
Labor Time spent applying, J
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (min) 24.4
Cost ($)
Materials and # of rags used
Equipment Cost ($)
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Hazardous Amount (g)
Disposal Cost ($)
$5.33
3
$0.45
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
3.0
$0.12
34
$0.02
9.7
$2.12
7.0
1.05
3.0
0.18
3.3
0.09
4.0
0.27
112
0.08
18.3
$4.00
3.8
0.57
4.2
0.26
4.2
0.11
1.5
0.10
57
0.04
Totals ' , i -- ' " : - ' 5 ,-
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
$9,399
3.79
3.08
7,097
4,624
5.08
5.29
1,269
7,930
* Normalized values adjust product usage,; number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
44
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM GAMMA j
For Product System Gamma, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from jthe volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the p'erformance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Gamma was demojnstrated, or on the specific details of the product
system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Gamma, demonstrated at Facilities 16 and 25, consisted of an ink
remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover. Facility 16 prints vehicle markinjgs;
Facility 25 prints appliance panel overlays, back-lit automotive panels, and store displays.
During the four week demonstration period, Facility 16 reclaimed 55 screens although ink
remover was only used on seven screens and haze remover was only used on three screens;
Facility 25 reclaimed 54 screens but the ink remover and haze remover were only used on
about half of these. During the demonstrations, both Facility 16 and 25 used solvent-based
inks; Facility 16 used a capillary film emulsion and Facility 25 used a direct photo stencil.
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Gamma was testejd at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-
based ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover
performance varied depending on the typie of ink used. The emulsion remover and haze
remover performance was consistent for all three screens. All products were applied
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
On the screen with the solvent-based ink and the screen with UV ink, the ink remover
dissolved the ink well with no effect on the stencil. On the water-based ink screen,
however, heavy scrubbing and more product were needed to remove the ink. While
scrubbing, the stencil started to break down in the half-tone area. For all the screens, only
one rag was used for ink removal.
.
The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil with only light scrubbing on all
three screens, leaving no ink or emulsion residue behind. The technician noted that miost
of the stencil dissolved while she was j brushing, and the pressure wash took off the
remainder. The screens did have a moderate ink stain remaining. Subsequent application
of the haze remover lightened the ink stains so that a light to very light ink stain remained.
!
|
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
I - -
The operating conditions for each' facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Gamma for one riionth are described below. This information is
provided as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product
system at each of these two facilities.
45
-------
Ink Remover: Facility 16 reported that the ink remover left an unacceptable amount
of ink on the screen and required a lot of jphysical effort. Facility 25 also reported that the
ink remover was not acceptable, leaving ink residue on the screen, especially in the open
areas of the screen mesh. The ink removsr required much more time to apply (up to more
than twice as long in some cases) with much greater physical effort than the products
normally used at these facilities. Leaving the ink remover to sit for 3-5 minutes on the
screen helped improve performance on the screen areas covered with emulsion, but did not
help to remove the ink on the open screen areas.
Emulsion Remover: Both facilities reported that the emulsion remover worked very
well. Facility 16 was able to shorten the time between application and rinse from the
recommended one or two minutes to less than one minute without compromising the product
performance. Facility 25 improved the emulsion remover performance by wetting the screen
before applying the emulsion remover.
Haze Remover: Neither facility found the performance of the haze remover to be
acceptable. They found the haze remover did not remove the ink haze left in the screen,
which resulted in ghost images in future print jobs. Both facilities had to use their standard
haze remover on their screens before they could be reused.
46
-------
to
S N £
•c d •*= o
»- O 13 O
O c CO.
> § CD «
o o > 2J
E1*- o 3
*— c ^
CO 00 C ,„
>- Q. £ jg
CO -^ (D
— o c >
CO CL . — ^
" - 'to £
§ § . =5
^ "2 "S Z
r- Q. >
-00 0 ol
S E tn E
. £
c
fi
TJ 05
£ £ i
CD
2
CD
"O
J
CO
c
E
co
co
-H _
^ II
^ 3
S
o
CM
•H p:
0 II
ID 3
.£
4) _
0 II
co'S
5
*
c
2
! I
TJ
CD
Easily remov
stencil on all
screens.
S
2
CO
c
1
CO
1i O
-H- U}
CO II
^ £
g
co
^1 _
•H in
CO U
CM S
CO
•?
O
CN
CM
-H Jo
CM |i
10 £
1
c
QJ
OC
!
in
0
J* M
Did not remc
ghost image
CN
. £
_Sr< C
Excessive inl
residue left i
"screen:
'
~
£. \
D> I
X
CO
.c
s
•H S
Hi
J- -S
8
CO
&
^
* CM
O £
.1
q
to
•H Jo
CM ^
en '
w
CO
Q
g
1
Faclity 26
j
=
"~ C
Quickly, eas
removed ste
5
o
.1
co
0 _
0 U
m 3
N
O
^
d _
•H g
CM II
T- £
00
.E
CO
«S
"I
i
c
fe
QC
i
based ink j
1
*5
i!
j^ CO
s
o
.1
•«*
d _
CM "»
N-S
N
O
Ol
r^ — ,
•«s
co II
id S
00'
CO,
•W to
CO II
V
g
s
cS
flc
§~ ^
DO
i <& *^
cH »
'o
to
c
0
CJ
*
o
^J
"S
3
dissolved
,i£
-
3
-1
CO
1
CO
CO
s
to
CO
c
1
10
1
g
ft
*t
*g
1
c
'£
'co
E
CD
C
s
CO
c
CD
2
CD
^
^
'co
to
CD
^
'o
1
1
CO
ce.
5
J
CO
1
en
CO
s
q
1
Tf
1
|
flc
.5
,J3
•Q
i
A
1
c
•D
CO
1
o
3
§
J
0)
1
CO
s
q
CO
c
£
o
w
§
5
dj
CO
ctl
*
i
1
'o
c
1
c
0
CD
i
o
_;
"CD
S
dissolved
V*
—
g
J
CO
c
1
U)
CO
s
U)
CO
c
1
u>
h.
2
g
iS
QC
•^
1
t
'£
"co
E
CO
c
3
to
•^
CO
2
-------
TABLE 6.14
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE GAMMA
•
Description
,
Baseline
Alternative System
Gamma
Facility 1 6 Facility 25
Facility Characteristics
Averaae screen size (in2) 2,127
Average # screens/day 6
2.294 1 .848
20 25
Cost Elements oar Screen >
Labor Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (mir
i) .24.4
Cost ($) $5.33
Materials and # of rags used 3
Equipment ^ {$) $Q 4{_
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
3.0
$0.12
i ...
Hazardous Amount (g) 34
Waste
Disposal Cost ($)
Totafs
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
* Normalized values adjust product usage,
laundered to reflect the screen size and nur
scenario. Labor costs, however, are not norr
the baseline and facility results.
•
:.-'•
.
$0.02
15.9 16.9
$3.48 $3.70
5.0 7.0
0.75 1 .04
5.0 10.8
0.43 0.92
2.3 1.2
0.24 0.12
3.3 5.3
0.24 0.39
0 0.0
0 0.0
-•*'-- ..r.."''
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
$9,399
5.14 6.17
5.06 5.61
25,708 38,547
7,590 8,417
-
number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
nber of screens cleaned per day under the baseline
lalized. Normalization allows a comparison between
48
-
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM MU
For Product System Mu, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating Conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Mu was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product system
performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Mu consisted of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze
remover. The performance of the product! system was demonstrated at Facilities 17 and 22.
Facility 17 prints decals; Facility 22 prints back-lit automotive overlays. During the four
week demonstration period, Facility 17 reclaimed 18 screens and Facility 22 reclaimed 44
screens. For the performance demonstrations, Facility 17 used primarily UV-cured inks, and
Facility 22 used solvent-based inks; both facilities used a direct photo stencil.
| - - -
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Mu was tested at ^PTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover and the
haze remover performance varied depending on the type of ink used. The emulsion remover
and the haze remover performance was consistent on all three screens.
On the screen with the solvent-based ink and the screen with UV ink, the ink remover
dissolved the ink easily with little scrubbing and no effect on the emulsion. On the water-
based ink screen, however, the ink drieji in the screen and heavy scrubbing and more
product were needed to remove the ink. While scrubbing, the stencil started to break down
in the half tone area. For all three screens, one wipe was used to remove the ink.
I -
The emulsion remover easily dissolved the stencil with only light scrubbing on all
three screens, leaving no ink or emulsion residue behind. The screens did have a light-to-
moderate ink stain was remaining. Subsequent application of the haze remover lightened the
ink stains of the UV ink arid the water-jbased ink screen, so that a very light ink stain
remained. The haze remover did not lighten the moderate ink stain on the screen with the
solvent-based ink. j
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
I
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF. j
Ink Remover: Facility 17 reported that the ink remover worked well, although blaick
(UV-cured) inks were more difficult to remove than the other UV-cured inks. Facility 22
i
'! 49
-------
reported that the ink remover performance was unacceptable for their solvent-based ink
system. Extra physical effort and time were needed, and a lot of product was applied, but
an ink residue still remained on the screen. The standard ink remover used at Facility 22
is chemically very different from the alternative ink remover supplied as part of Product
System Mu. These differences may have caused adverse chemicals interactions on older
screens.
Emulsion Remover: The emulsiojn remover performance was very good at both
facilities. It removed the emulsion quickly, easily, and completely. Facility 22 commented
that the emulsion remover performance wjas "excellent."
I . •
Haze Remover: Facility 17 reported that the haze remover worked better and faster
than one of their usual products, but not as well as the haze remover that they use for
difficult stains. The haze remover's performance was also affected by the number of
impressions in the previous test run: it did not work as well after runs with many
impressions. Facility 22 reported that the; haze remover did not work at all and they had to
use their standard product before they could reuse the screen. There was no visible change
in the haze when the haze remover was applied.
50
-------
£C
O
a.
D
S
s
o
S
a.
in
to
2
£
S
a.
|
CO
0)
1
5 I 3
1 * 8
£ O 09
£ >- 2
« 5 o
o
1
en
j:
•a
co
CO
! •§
•a +•
fl> >•
S •£
09 09
o
f.
r- II
i~j C
0)
CO
-
£ •»
£
o
o
co
O -~.
4)2
(O II
*J c
CO II
_,: c
§ 09
.
J^ 09
11
CO
•" >u i—
I §||
Illl
= 2>S 3
J2
09
•2
o
S
CO
T3
o _
4)2
E
to
o
5 * *••
^ to «
>.
'co
0
\y
C
Dissolved
|
^
00
'1
LO
m
N
0
0
1
ID
09
S
g
03
"C
*
I
A
"c.
'5
£
99
C
'55
CO
c
09
4-1
a
09
i
ss
I
'o
c
s
CO
Dissolved
09
5
w
•o
5
CO
-i
(O
CO
N
O
10
o
2
CM
<
S
o
R
oc
^
,O
1
S
1
c
's
CO
"c
c
t»
4-1
I
•a
'o
09
§
09
X
$
00
'g
O
CM
N
O
o
1
o
o5
Q
3
QC
c&
1
jj
—
1
.£
•~
CO
09
w
§
\s
.£
Dissolved
1
3
CO
c
1
en
„
N
O
to
1
in
V
^
§
CO
*C
1
fc
«
O)
c
'c
'CD
£
09
_C
'ea
CO
_c
«
5"
^J
i
1
09
CO
Dissolved
S
eg
w
09
•a
S
CO
c
I
CO
CO
N
o
o
«•*
I
«N
is
^
09
C
'!
CD
Z
S
>
3
'
c
'5
to
^
.£
Lightened
§
00
c
'i
O
CM
N
O
10
o
1
o
fe
§
Q
CO
oc
1
i
4
09
-o
09
O
£
09
•a
2
'5
CT
09
4-J
O
3
•a
o
a.
•a
c
CO
O)
c
IS
o*
CO
Excessive
ra
I
CO
c
1
«-
CO
N
O
O
CM
00
c
1
to
^
S
>
g
iS
^c
1
£
c
'c
'co
09
C
'co
CO
c
«
ts
^J
i
'o
c
s
CO
Dissolved
09
2
09
0
CO
c
1
T-
co
N
O
to
£
CM
1
O
R
*b
QC
C
,§
1
o
3
•2
1
c
'S
CO
^
.£
Lightened
S
^
CO
'§
O
CM
N
O
10
o
CO
c
O
fe
I?
Q
09
CO
1
1
51
-------
TABLE 6.16
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE MU
Description
Facility Characteristics
Averaae screen size (in2)
Baseline
Alternative
Facility 17
System Mu
Facility 22
2.127
Average # screens/day j 6
2.270
25
1.520
12
Cost Elements oer Screen i
Labor Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (m
n) 24.4
Cost ($) $5.33
Materials and # of rags used 3
Equipment _
Cost ($) $0.45
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
•
3.0
$0.12
Hazardous Amount (g) 34
Waste
Disposal Cost($) $0.02
17.2
$3.75
1.0
0.15
2.7
0.16
2.6
6.21
2.9
0.17
110
0.08
34.6
$7.58
10.8
1.61
11.6
0.70
1.1
0.09
1.3
0.08
73
0.05
Totals - j
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
$9,399
4.53
4.79
28,295
7,185
10.11
9.33
30,338
13,997
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflebt the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
52
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AE
Product System Omicron-AE and Product System Omicron-AF were submitted for
demonstration by the same manufacturer.! They have the same ink remover and the same
emulsion remover, but each one has a different haze remover to complete the system.
Although these systems do share a common ink remover and emulsion remover, Omicron-
AE and Omicron-AF are each evaluated as a separate product system in this documentation.
It was the intention of the Performance Demonstrations to evaluate reclamation systems as
a whole, not individual products, whenever possible.
For Product System Omicron-AE, this section describes the performance results from
the laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Omicron-AE, was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the
product system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
I •• •
The performance of Omicron-AE was demonstrated at Facilities 2 and 19. This
product system consisted of an ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover. A
degreaser also accompanied this product system and was used by one of the facilities,
however, detailed information on the perjfonnance of the degreaser is not included in the
scope of this project. Facility 2 prints signs, and displays; Facility 19 prints overlays, and
membrane switches. During the demonstration, Facility 2 reclaimed 30 screens using
solvent-based inks and a direct photo stencil over a 4 week period. Facility 19 did not
participate in the demonstrations after the, observer's one day visit. During the visit, they
reclaimed four screens, but based on the poor results of those first reclamations, they decided
not to participate in the project. Neither I facility tried alternative application techniques to
improve product performance. |
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Omicron-AE was tested at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-
based ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). Products were
applied according to the manufacturer's recommended application procedure. On the screens
with the solvent-based ink and with UV ink, the ink dissolved well with little effort. On the
solvent-based ink screen, the stencil wasj affected in the half-tone area, but there was no
effect on the stencil on the UV ink screeh. Six wipes were used to remove the ink from
each screen. On the screen with water-biased ink, the ink dissolved well, however, extra
scrubbing was needed. The stencil was 'affected in the half-tone area. Again, six wipes
were used. I
I . i
On all three screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil effectively. On the
screen with solvent-based ink and the U\[ ink screen, moderate scrubbing was required to
break up the stencil and the pressure wash remove the stencil completely. A light to
moderate ink stain remained on each screen. On the screen with water-based ink, the stencil
i .
! 53
-------
I
dissolved easily with only light scrubbing, but there was a small amount of ink residue
remaining in the half-tone areas, in addition to a moderate ink stain.
The haze remover lightened the stains on all three screens and removed the ink
residue on the water-based ink screen, j However, all * screens did have some ink stain
remaining after the application of the haze remover.
I ' ;v
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
This section summarizes the produjct system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF. • |
|
Ink Remover: Facility 2 reported that the ink remover performed poorly and required
a lot more scrubbing than their usual product. The chemical composition of the alternative
ink remover was extremely different than the constituents of the facility's standard product.
Adverse interactions may have occurred 'because of these chemical differences. The ink
remover seemed to work better when useji immediately after printing, but the performance
was still not acceptable. At Facility 19, the ink remover had to be re-applied and scrubbed
into the screen repeatedly, and all residual ink was still not removed.
i • • • • • • '
Emulsion Remover: In general, facility 2 liked the emulsion remover better than
their usual product, although it took extra time to use the hand sprayer and the emulsion
remover was not as effective when thick ink residue was present. Facility 19 was not
satisfied with the emulsion remover performance. They reported that the emulsion remover
had to be re-applied and scrubbed into the screen repeatedly; even then residual emulsion
was left on the screen. |
• i .
Haze Remover: Both facilities j found the haze remover performance to be
unacceptable. Facility 2 saw no reduction in haze after applying the product. At Facility
19, the haze remover did not completely remove the haze. This facility, however, had very
high standards in terms of haze removal; other facilities would have been satisfied with this
level of haze removal. It should be noted that both facilities used standard haze removers
that were very different chemically than the alternative haze remover. On screens that were
reclaimed many times, there is potential fojr adverse effects due to interaction of the standard
and alternative products. j
54
-------
LU
O
2
•!t
S
S
g
V)
CO
13
g
•g-o
•
Modera
CO
•« _
10 ^
2l
£
CO
en _
letely
cil.
Easily, c
removed
g
E
co' _
co _
10 II
.J C
co _
-Hg
co U
o
10
•H
CO _
1
IS
2
a
I I ,o
- * - is
i si|
o 2 —
•g O CD
-h co to
ca
-H co
co II
g
CM
-H co
CO U
•i!
« o •
o ^
111
§ s 1
o: c S
I
CO
I
E
CO
d
jj jj*
CO II
COS
g
CO
d
-H n
eo II
he
1
co
oi
•fl _
O £
o
10
CM
CO II
CO
CO
o
to
•a
S
u
CO
1
CD
W
1
c
Dissolved
1
c
E
CO
00
g
o
CO
1
Ifl
1
C
QJ
••C
1
£
CO
d>
c
i
_c
CO
_g
a»
1
s
CO
Dissolved
CO
2
CO
•§
E
00
m
g
ID
O
£
*
CM
%
O
5
ce
^
.C3
1
Solvent-
c
i
tcT
o
2
I
2
73
4-«
3
J2
Lightened,
o
c
E
o
g
10
o
1
o
1
s
oc
<&
1
based Ink ~
1
.a*
_c
Dissolved
3
CO
c
E
CO
g
0
CM
CO
c
E
10
1
E
«
^c
1
E
«
e?
C
CD
CD,
C
I
1
•5
i
Lightened,
1.
CO
c
E
«-'
10
g
10
o
CO
1
O
1
s
QC
Q>
1
,.
CO
CO
to
to
c
•a
CD
0
•S
"3
1
i
t
f
+j
.*
.c
Dissolved
S
S
CD
1
CO
c
E
CM
g
o
co
CO
c
1
10
•""
•i
g
(2
^c
*
\
to
•D
2.
1
to
c
1
1
i
*o
c
S
Dissolved
I
CO
c
£
10
CO
g
o
£
CM
cS
S
CO
C
,§
1
il
cz
5
to
c
§
o
CD
g
•o
^
4^
3
Lightened,
i
CO
c
£
U)
U)
g
o
t—
CO
c
1
O
1
Q>
5
CD
1
JC
55
-------
TABLE 6.18
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE OMICRON AE
Alternative System
Baseline Omicron AE
Description
Facility Characteristics [
Average screen size (in2) 2,127
Average # screens/day 6
5,663
6
957
70
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor
Materials and
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (min) 24.4
Cost ($)
# of rags used
Cost($)
Ink Rernover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
Totals
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$5.33
3
$0.45
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
;
3.0
$0.12
34
$0.02
40.2
$8.80
16
2.43
12.6
0.96
7.5
0.56
12.6
0.89
0
0
20.7
$4.52
0
0
2.3
0.18
1.3
0.10
2.3
0.16
0
0
$6.27
$6.27
•
$9,399
-
$9,399
13.65
10.85
20,470
16,278
4.96
5.49
86,787
8,240
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs;, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
56
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AF
i
Product System Omicron-AE and Product System Omicron-AF were submitted for
demonstration by the same manufacturer. They have the same ink remover and the same
emulsion remover, but each one has a different haze remover to complete the system.
Although these systems do share a common ink remover and emulsion remover, Omicron-
AE and Omicron-AF are each evaluated as a separate product system in this documentation.
It was the intention of the Performance Demonstrations to evaluate reclamation systems as
a whole, not individual products, whenever possible.
For Product System Omicron-AF, this section describes the performance results from
the laboratory performance tests and from the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Omicron-AF, was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the
product system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Omicron-AF is a water-based system and it consisted of an ink
remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze remover. A degreaser accompanied this product
system, however, detailed information on | the performance of the degreaser is not included
in the scope of this project. The performance of the product was demonstrated at Facilities
4 and 18. Facility 4 prints decals using UV-cured inks and direct photo stencils; Facility 18
prints nameplates, panels, and graphic overlays using solvent-based inks and either direct
photo stencils or capillary film emulsions, i During the demonstration periods, Facility 4 used
the alternative products to reclaim 19 screens over a 2 week period and Facility 18 reclaimed
32 screens over 4 weeks. Facility 4 discontinued use of the alternative product system after
two weeks, due to the poor performance of the ink remover and the haze remover.
i . • •
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Omicron-AF was tested at SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-
based ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and pne with a water-based ink). On the screen with
the solvent-based ink, the ink dissolved well with moderate effort (5 wipes were used). On
the last rag there was a slight blue color (the color of the stencil) which may indicate that
the ink remover could deteriorate the stencil. Ink remover performance on the screen with
UV-cured ink was similar expect there was some red coloring on the rag as well as blue.
The red tint could indicate an effect on the adhesive (which is red) that holds the screen to
the frame. The UV-cured ink screen also required moderate effort to remove the ink and
6 rags were used. Compared to the other two screens, the screen with water-based ink
required additional time, effort (7 rags), and product to loosen the ink. Also on the water-
based ink screen, the technician noted that the ink remover started to deteriorate the stencil.
On all three screens, the emulsion remover dissolved the stencil quickly and with
moderate scrubbing effort and the pressure rinse removed it completely. On the screen with
solvent-based ink, a moderate ink stain remained on the screen after using the emulsion
i ' ' '
57
-------
remover. The UV screen had a lighter stain. The water-based ink screen had a moderate
stain with some ink residue remaining in the half-tone area. The haze remover lightened the
stains on all three screens and removed the ink residue on the water-based ink screen.
I
Products were applied according |to the manufacturer's recommended application
procedure. After using the haze remover! the technician noted that there was a small hole
in the screen with solvent-based ink that was not there before using the haze remover.
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
i
I -, ;
This section summarizes the produU system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF.
Ink Remover: At Facility 4, thej ink remover removed the ink from the mesh
satisfactorily, however, residue remained; in the stencil area on most of the screens. The
printer felt the ink residue was minimal, and if he were using his standard haze remover, this
residue would not have been a problem. 'Facility 18 reported that the ink remover worked
as well as their standard products. j
i . , . . ." ,
Emulsion and Haze Remover: The emulsion remover worked very well at both
facilities. It removed the stencil completely and easily. The haze remover performance was
not acceptable at either facility. Facility 4 reported that the haze remover was not effective
in removing any of the ink haze, even with vigorous scrubbing and procedural modifications.
A ghost image appeared on subsequent print jobs, which required that the printer clean the
screens again with his standard product. At Facility 18, the haze remover left too much haze
under all conditions and their standard haze remover had to be used after the alternative
products before the screen could be reused. Because of this poor performance, the facility
stopped using the haze remover during the first week of demonstrations.
58
-------
1
<
at
(O
ui
,-• to >
£ -Q o
> 0 0
I|£
2 •= C
emulsion i
« They sv\
remover a
1
1
CD
OC
CO
c
'£
C7)
d _
•H $
|x II
• ^
CM —
§
10
0 _
CM II
eg c
"
1
O
N
^^
2£
CM £
03
&
§
S
^
Faciity IB
Solvent- .
•a
1
£
II
UJ a
1
CO
c
E
T-
T^ _
•H 51
31
g
^ ^^
• c
CD
- C
1
""I
^«
CM II
T— C
c?
S
A
Q:
|
-!2
1
1 1
1 1
ID
s
ID
CO
ID
is
g
g
£
•JS
-------
TABLE 6.20
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE OMICRON - AF
Baseline
Alternative System
Omicron - AF
Description
Facility 4
Facility 18
Facility Characteristics !:.!.•• • '"•' •'••"".'•. '•'^}br?£'- •"' "v" • >•& • '-''-^f^^^^^^'^fr''^: " •;:v:7:'- . • '•.
Average screen size (in2)
2,127
Average # screens/day 6
1,210
6
1,150
13
Cost Elements per Screen
Labor Time spent applyjng,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (min) 24.4
Cost ($)
Materials and # of rags used
Equipment - t ,_.
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost {$)
Hazardous Amount (g)
$5.33
3
$0.45
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
'
3.0
$0.12
34
Disposal Cost <$) $0.02
15.0
$3.28
1.3
0.20
1.6
0.12
1.4
0.10
2.1
0.15
0
0
10.8
$2.37
1.3
0.20
2.2
0.17
3.6
0.27
1.9
0.14
0
0
Totals '
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
$9,399
3.86
4.45
5,784
6,675
3.14
3.89
9,823
5,836
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
60
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM Pffl
For Product System Phi, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from jthe volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating Conditions of the two volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Phi, was demonstrated, or on the specific details of the product
system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Phi consisted of ah ink remover, an emulsion remover, and a haze
remover. It's performance was demonstrated at Facility 5 and Facility 23. Facility 5
employs approximately 15 people with 3j employees involved in the screen printing area.
They print interior signs, markings on parjts., and identification badges. Facility 23 employs
five people and prints mainly on plastics. Their products include front panels, overlays, and
labels. Over a four week period, Facility 5 reclaimed 40 screens. Facility 23 used Product
System Phi for two weeks and reclaimed 8 screens. During the demonstrations, both
facilities primarily used solvent-based vinyl inks, but they also tried System Phi on acrylic
vinyl, epoxy, and metallic inks. Facility 5 used a capillary film emulsion on a polyester
screen and Facility 23 used a dual-cure emulsion on a multifilament polyester screen.
Performance in the Laboratory
•*- i
Product System Phi was tested at SPTF on two screens (one with a solvent-based ink,
and one with a UV-cured ink). This product is not recommended for use on water-based
inks. Oil both screens, the ink dissolved {quickly with minimal effort. There was a slight
blue color on the wipe (the color of the stencil), but the stencil did not appear to be damaged
or deteriorated. On the screen with solvent-based ink, six rags were needed to remove the
ink, and on the UV ink screen, five rags jwere used. The technician noticed a slight odor.
The emulsion remover also worked well; it completely dissolved the stencil with only
light scrubbing on both screens. After using the emulsion remover, the screen with solvent-
based ink had a very light stain and slight ink residue in small areas. The haze remover
lightened the stain only slightly, but it removed the ink residue. The screen with UV-cured
ink had a dark ink stain and the haze remover lightened it somewhat, but did not remove it
completely. The technician noted that the haze remover was very easy to use and required
minimal effort. There was a slight odor to the product, but it was not unpleasant.
The recommended application procedure was followed with a few slight variations.
The ink remover was allowed to sit on the screen for 30 seconds before it was rubbed in
with a sponge. The haze remover was removed with a pressure wash.
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
i
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
i
I 61
-------
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF. |
Ink Remover: Both facilities reported similar results with Product System Phi. At
Facility 5, the ink remover broke down the1 ink effectively but required more effort than their
own ink remover. Facility 23 found that (the ink remover performance was inconsistent; it
worked well on metallic inks, but did not] remove ink from around the edges of the stencil
when using vinyl ink. Both facilities noticed that the ink remover tended to deteriorate the
stencil if it was not wiped off immediately after application. For this reason, the facilities
felt that this product should not be used for in-process ink removal.
Emulsion Remover: The emulsion} remover was very effective and it easily removed
the stencil with very little scrubbing. Both facilities reported the System Phi emulsion
remover performed better than the product they were using before the demonstrations.
Haze Remover: Facility 5 reported that a haze remained on the screen after using the
haze remover, but it did not affect future print image quality. Over time, the printer felt this
haze could potentially deteriorate the screen mesh. Facility 23 reported that the haze
remover left a ghost image and some screens could not be reused for reverse printing or for
printing with transparent inks.
62
-------
C
to
*i
'O OT
c •«
£ S .
00 ^
O (0
-C ^
^ <0
(0 C
II
•a .£
O *J
O J^
E .£
If
Light/Moderate
ink haze on 35%
of screens.
to
to
•5
s
8
1
CM
II
i
i
§
V.
1
"> ,
1 1
,2 - II
£
E
to
O — .
CO U
S
1
<£
c
•a
^
i
Did not
consistently
remove haze.
i
jz =5 o
•^ T3 E
o> to o
.= - N
Q. ® O
2 to ^
to o £
.£• JO T3
•= to £
u! S §•
. 3 £
Inconsistent
performance.
Worked well on
i
g
E
>
3>
ii
£
CO
II
c
c:
!
5 J
[- i
Quickly, easily
removed stencil.
<0
«
*^_ <0
3"§
si
.1
E
TJ.
T— _
•H 2
en n
c-i •£
N
O
o
o _
4.2
q n
•• s
^
^k
Ink dissolved easil
$
S
§
E
IN.
(O
g
U)
C
1
u>
1
1
1$
^c
1
\
II
c
ffl
JC
.2"
i
to
0
3
2
to
£
^
c
~
ra
"a
^
(0
Stencil dissolved (
remaining.
$
S
'i
1
*t
to
S
to
o
00
CM
2
|
O
1
0)
15
c
'5
to
1
9)
Jc
CT
§
S
C
E,
to
LO
g
O
.8
o
1
5
<£
m
1
,1
S
83
Ink dissolved very
S
3
w
c
1
LO
LO
a
o
CM
03
C
LO
1
|
i5
™C
1
e
<0
d>
'c
'5
£
c
2
to
,£
S
•S
'i
CD
Stencil dissolved c
$
CO
c
1
ID
LO
g
LO
6
00
CM
fe
|
0?
5
.Q
1
|
I
.^
'i
0
£
o
c
2
g
(^
Lightened ink staii
S
2
1
CM
<£»
g
LO
O
g
"E
o
1
1
Q^
QJ
1
|
63
-------
TABLE 6.22
1
COST ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE PHI
'
Description
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Baseline
'
Alternative
Facility 5
System Phi
Facility 23
- :
2,127
- Average # screens/day 6
Cost Elements per Screen
2,815
3
883
4
Labor Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclamation products (min) 24.4
Cost ($)
Materials and # of rags used
Equ-pment Cost ($)
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product Average Volume (oz.)
Use
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost {$)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Hazardous Amount (g)
Waste
Disposal Cost <$)
$5.33
3
$0.45
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
3.0
$0.12
34
$0.02
8.0
$1.74
2.9
0.43
1.3
0.25
1.7
0.33
1.1
0.35
0
0
22.0
$4.81
1.3
0.19
2.0
0.39
1.0
0.19
1.2
0.37
0
0
Totals - ' !' *>....
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
$9,399
3.11
6.10
1,991
9,233
5.96
7.82
5,957
1 1 ,728
* Normalized values adjust product usage, number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflept the screen size and number of screens cleaned
per day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization
allows a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
64
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM ZETA
For Product System Zeta, this section describes the performance results from the
laboratory performance tests and from| the volunteer facility demonstrations, and also
presents two tables: one summarizes the performance results and the other presents costing
data. For information on the operating conditions of the three volunteer printing facilities
where Product System Zeta, was demonstrated, or on the specific details of .the product
system performance at each of the facilities, see Appendix I.
Product System Zeta consisted of an ink remover, emulsion remover, and a haze
remover. The performance of the products was demonstrated at Facilities 6, 7, and 15.
Facility 6 prints store displays, traffic markings, and movie posters; Facility 7 prints decals,
labels, vehicle markings, and store displays; Facility 15 prints plexiglass displays, store
displays, and banners. During the demonstration period, Facility 6 reclaimed seven screens,
Facility 7 reclaimed four screens, and Facility 15 reclaimed eight screens. Facility 6 used
solvent, UV-cured, and water-based inks; Facility 7 and Facility 15 used solvent-based and
UV-cured inks, and capillary film emulsions.
I . ' '
Performance in the Laboratory
Product System Zeta was tested ai SPTF on three screens (one with a solvent-based
ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based ink). The ink remover
performance varied depending on the type of ink used. The emulsion remover and haze
remover performance was consistent for jail three screens.
!•••••
i ,
On all three screens, the modifications were made to the manufacturer's instructions
for applying ink remover. First, the technician applied the ink remover following the
recommended method (spray on both sides of the screen, wait two minutes, squeegee off fink,
and rinse with pressure washer). This application method did not satisfactorily remove the
ink from any of the three screens. To improve the ink remover performance, the technician
reapplied the product using a different method. For the second ink remover application, the
technician wiped the screen with a dry j rag to remove excess water, sprayed more ink
remover over the entire screen, and wiped with rags until the rag was no longer picking up
the ink. On the screen with solvent-based ink, the screen had some spots of ink residue and
a medium gray haze after the first ink remover application. The stencil was affected in the
half-tone area and it turned a light blue color in some areas. A second application of ink
remover on the solvent-based ink screen removed the ink residue, but the stencil color came
up on the rag. Four rags were used. On the screen with the UV ink, after the first ink
remover application procedure, there was a heavy gray stain over the entire screen, ink
residue remained in some areas, and the stencil had a dull finish. After the second
application of the ink remover, the screen still had some ink stains remaining, but the gray
haze was removed. Three rags were used. On the water-based ink screen, after the first
application of ink remover was squeegeed off, ink residue remained, mainly on the emulsion.
The ink wiped off easily when the ink remover was applied again. The rag was blue with
the emulsion from the half-tone areas. Two rags were used.
65
-------
On all three screens, the stencil dissolved easily with moderate scrubbing. A
moderate ink stain remained on all of the screens, but there was no stencil stain or ink
residue. The haze remover did not appear to lighten the ink stain on any of the screens.
The technician also noted that the odor [of. the haze remover was so strong, she felt an
exhaust fan or a respirator was required, j Overall, although an ink stain remained on the
screens, SPTF did not think the stain would affect future print quality and therefore,
evaluated the product system as acceptable.
Summary of Performance at the Volunteer Facilities
This section summarizes the product system performance as recorded by the printers
using the products at both of the demonstration facilities. The table at the end of the section
summarizes both the field demonstration performance data and the results of the product tests
performed at SPTF.
Ink Remover: Facility 6 reported that the performance of the alternative ink remover
was poor, and they had to reclean their screens using their standard ink remover after the
alternative product. Although the ink remover performed poorly with solvent and UV-cuired
inks in general, Facility 6 reported that tiie alternative ink remover worked well on one
screen with water-based inks and on one jwith UV-cured ink. Facility 7 reported that for
solvent-based inks, the ink remover seemed to dry on the screen and did not take the ink out;
the alternative product did work well withj UV-cured inks. To improve performance of the
ink remover, the screen reclamation employee needed to begin wiping the ink remover off
the screen immediately after spraying instead of waiting, as recommended. If the ink
remover was not wiped off immediately, it dried on the screen and then they needed to use
their regular ink remover. Facility 15 reported that the ink remover did not work at all for
this facility; it had to be applied a numbjer of times and, even with more scrubbing than
usual, it had to be followed with their standard product.
Emulsion Remover: Both Facility J6 and Facility 7 found the emulsion remover did
not work well when diluted with five parts -water. When the facilities increased the emulsion
remover concentration by diluting with only three parts water, the emulsion remover
dissolved the stencil. At Facility 6, the performance of the emulsion remover was mot
consistent, even at the stronger concentration. Facility 7 was generally pleased with the
performance of the emulsion remover at the stronger concentration, however, they still had
problems if the emulsion remover was permitted to dry in the mesh. Facility 15 reported
that the emulsion remover was passable, but the facility still preferred their own product.
The alternative emulsion remover required extra scrubbing effort (even at full strength) at
Facility 15. j
Haze Remover: All three facilities; reported that the haze remover did not have any
effect on the haze. They all had to use j their own haze remover in many cases. These
facilities did not reclaim many screens using the Product System Zeta for several reasons:
they were disappointed and discouraged by the early results, the products arrived later then
expected and the observer was not present to assist the printers with the application
I
66
-------
procedure or to offer suggestions for improving performance, and the production schedules
of the shops was unusually busy. Because of these factors, none of the facilities put
extensive effort into attempting to alter application techniques to make the products work at
their shop.
67
-------
s
g
Jo
(O
1
o
CD
JD
5 -a
U O
2
o
CO
I-N
^- S:
°1
Q.
I
® -'
(0 V
II
2 £
T3 ^
O
O
a.
CD
3
•o
'a c
CD II
">
a -c
-c c
82
II
CD O
in c
CD
2
C9
*
CO
c
1
to
o
-H ?
pi
-H _
=i
>s
§
§
Oc
1
c»7s
CO '55 CO
8 § °>
Q) « PJ
II «
_>
o
•
i
-a
.2
a
'o
co jr
a S 2 co •§
(D 3 O _ . S
5 o " ' o-
o • 2 2 £ «
§ § *f 3« .
c ^ £ 22 §
E ~ « > 3 »
25 '5 -° ^ ° 2
•D t co co o o> «
^c^-
1:1
screen mesh and
did not remove
ink effectively.
CD
2
II
mS
eg
1
q
•H?
CO II
CO £
j
'
*
i.
g
Q
i
* ii
Reapplication of
product needed to
remove stencil.
5
0
_i
to
e
'£
in
6
-H gr
Seemed to have
no effect on haze.
f
OB
if
CO
c
E_
°-7\
££
SP
0 II
oi-S
. 00
c
1
o
d
-H gr
0 U
63
W
1
Qj
5
1
1*
i jji us
£ «15 ^ 1 i
.- §•$ S-ii
£ T3 CO £ Q. C
»- s gt- s 1
• a. S • 13 73
A lot of product
was required to
remove the ink.
S
e
_i
§
1
CO
u>
+) s
CM II
CO £
S
o>
ci
4t 31
0 II
w£
CO
^
*—
CN
-H
N{?
°l
o3
S
g
fit
»»
Stencil dissolved
slowly with extra
scrubbing effort.
.c
QJ
if
(0
c
1
o
Tt
•H 2o
U) II
oi
•H CO
t- II
*•£
^z
U)
S
^
3^
« ^
<
§
Q>
Oc
c
1
10 "ft .§
"™ •>!.§» * 5
Seemed to have
no effect on haze.
-*'
+i
i!
N
O
in
6
+i
-------
CD
U
CO
I
E
tn
I
«
fi
-------
Tfl
COST ANALYSIS FOR i
Description
BI.E6.24
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM
ZETA
Baseline Alternative System Zeta
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 15
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127 3,926
6 13
3,060
11
2,084
5
Cost Elements per Screen • '
Labor
Time spent applying,
scrubbing, and removing
reclaim products (min)
Cost ($)
Materials,
Equipment
Reclamation
Product
Use
Hazardous
Disposal
Totals
# of rags used
Cost ($)
Ink Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost {$)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost{$)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
Normalized*
24.4 17.6
$5.33 3.85
3 0.0
$0.45 0.00
8.0 8.3
$0.22 1.50
3.5 6.5
$0.13 0.23
3.0 2.8
$0.12 0.64
34 115
$0.02 0.08
_,
$6.27 6.31
$6.27 5.39
$9,399 19,704
$9,399 8,080
21.0
4.59
3.8
0.56
8.5
1.53
1.3
0.04
2.0
0.47
90
0.07
-
7.26
6.51
19,973
9,772
32.8
7.18
0.0
0.00
3.0
0.54
4.1
0.15
2.3
0.55
61
0.04
8.46
8.99
9,521
13,479
I
* Normalized values adjust product usage, \ number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs; however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
70
-------
ALTERNATIVE SCREEN RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY THETA
I
The performance of the Alternative Technology Theta was demonstrated at Facility
1 under conditions similar to those used atjSPTF for alternative product system testing. TTiis
facility, however, demonstrated the performance of an alternative screen reclamation
technology, instead of an alternative bhemical system. The alternative technology
demonstrated was a high pressure water] wash system with a 3000 psi spray applicator.
When reclaiming screens with this high pressure washer, an emulsion remover and a haze
remover are used, but no ink remover is needed. Several different types of emulsion and
haze removers are sold with this technology. The performance demonstration was conducted
using the chemical products that are normally used by this volunteer facility which are
supplied by the System Theta equipment manufacturer. Therefore, this performance
evaluation of this technology is based only on those chemicals used in the testing.
During the demonstration, the ink was carded off on both sides of the screen which
caused some complications during testing. Since the screen was prepared specifically for the
demonstration and was not actually used for printing, the ink on the stencil side transferred
through to the print side when the screen 'was carded. To remove this excess ink, the pirint
side was also scraped. The ink on the print side of the screen was more difficult to remove
and this ink also made it harder to remove, the emulsion. Under normal printing operations,
ink does not reach the print side of the screen, therefore some of the difficulty caused by the
ink on both sides of the screen would notioccur. During the demonstrations, System Theta
efficiently and effectively clean the screen], while reducing the labor, effort, and quantity of
chemicals required for reclamation.
Summary of System Theta Performance Evaluation
|.
Alternative Screen Reclamation Technology Theta was demonstrated using three
screens; one with a solvent-based ink, one with a UV-cured ink, and one with a water-based
ink. Results on the demonstrations are detailed here and are summarized in the table
following this section. Test screens were prepared using the same parameters as were used
for the testing of alternative chemical systems (these parameters are listed in the appendix).
At the printing facility, the inks were applied to the stencil side of the screen, and excess ink
was carded off (on both sides of the screen). Inks were allowed to dry for 18 hours before
reclamation. The ink residue on both sidles of the screen does not accurately represent the
conditions in typical printing operations, liowever, it does represent a worst case condition.
On the screen with the solvent-based ink and the screen with water-based ink, the
stencil dissolved easily with the application of the high pressure water; no scrubbing was
needed. There was no emulsion or ink residue left in the screen, but there was a medium
ink stain remaining on the screen with solvent-based ink and a very light stain on the waiter-
based ink screen. On both screens, all of 'the ink and stencil did dissolve after less than four
minutes of washing with the high pressure isprayer, however, the areas of the emulsion where
the ink was on the print side of the screen did not dissolve as quickly as the areas where
there was no ink on the print side. The haze remover completely eliminated the stains.
i •-.'•'
71
-------
When the haze remover was applied, the product immediately dissolved the ink stain, even
before the waiting period or the pressure wash.
i "
Results were similar for the screen jwith UV ink. In most areas the stencil dissolved
very easily without any scrubbing. After 4 minutes of water blasting, emulsion was still
present in blocks where the ink was scraped on the print side of the screen. It is possible
that the residual emulsion was caused by the test conditions and that it did not indicate poor
performance on the part of System Theta. |Some ink stain was remaining, especially in areas
where the emulsion was left. The haze remover removed all of the ink, leaving only a very
light stain, but the emulsion was still remaining in approximately one-third of the blocks.
To remove the emulsion, the emulsion remover was reapplied and allowed to sit for 20
seconds. After water blasting the screen again, the emulsion was completely removed.
I ' •
i
Overall, System Theta was an efficient and effective technique for screen cleaning.
Use of the system could minimize the quantity of chemicals needed for screen reclamation
by eliminating the ink remover and by using the high water pressure to reduce the quantity
of emulsion and haze remover required. System Theta also reduces the labor time and effort
needed to reclaim a screen. i
! 72
-------
09 -O
ea -t> 09
< §
_2
O
cS
09
I
V)
tu
a s
12
II
11
II
i!
±1
l
2|
£ IS
ii
I-;-
1
1
u C
J3 O
.SP'S
fl
> *s
1 s
9 O
II
2 •
*
$
If
Is
J2 —
11
|]
>> s
Ii
i 73
-------
TABLE 6.26
COST ANALYSIS FOR HIGH PRESSURE WASHER THETA
Description
Baseline
Description
System
Theta
Facility 1
Facility Characteristics
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
2,127
6
Average screen size (in2)
Average # screens/day
360
13
Cost Elements per Screen j
Labor Time spent applying,
scrubbing, removing
reclamation products
(min)
Cost ($)
Materials # of rags used
and
Equipment Cost ($'
Reclamation Ink Remover
Product
Use Average Volume (oz.)
Cost($)
Emulsion Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Hazardous Amount (g)
Waste
Disposal Cost <$>
24.4
$5.33
3
$0.45
8.0
$0.22
3.5
$0.13
3.0
$0.12
34
$0.02
Time spent pressure
washing, applying, and
removing reclamation
products (min)
Cost ($)
Pressure Wash Equipment
Cost ($)
Water Use (gal.)
Electricity Use (kWhr)
Utility Cost ($)
Emulsion Prep Product
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Haze Remover
Average Volume (oz.)
Cost ($)
Amount (g)
Cost ($)
5.4
$1.18
0.25
10.7
0.65
0.11
0.8
0.11
1.5
0.36
0
0
Totals " •*- * -J
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
$6.27
$6.27
$9,399
; $9,399
Total Cost/Screen
Normalized*
Total Cost/year
NnrmaliypH*
2.02
4.53
6,315
6,797
* Normalized values adjust product usage] number of screens cleaned, and number of rags
laundered at demonstration facilities to reflect the screen size and number of screens cleaned per
day under the baseline scenario. Labor costs, however, are not normalized. Normalization allows
a comparison between the baseline and facility results.
74
-------
ALTERNATIVE SODIUM BICARBONATE RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY
I . " • • "" . , .'
The sodium bicarbonate screen reclamation technology consists of an enclosed spray
cabinet where pressurized sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and water are sprayed onto the
parts inside the cabinet to clean them. Currently, this technology is used primarily for
removing coatings, such as paint, grease, or teflon from metal parts, however, as part of the
Dffi Performance Demonstration, this technology was tested to determine if it is potentially
adaptable as an alternative screen reclamation technology. Prior this project, the sodium
bicarbonate technology was never tested for screen reclamation applications. The cleaning
procedure used during the test was the method developed for cleaning metal parts and was
adapted to screen reclamation where the screen was placed inside the enclosure and held
under the pressurized baking soda spray |to remove the ink, emulsion and haze from the
screen simultaneously. The advantage ofj such a system for screen reclamation is that no
hazardous chemicals are used, and the need for ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze
remover is eliminated. In preliminary testing, the sodium bicarbonate technology showed
potential for effectively removing solvent- or water-based inks. Results on a screen with IJV
ink, however, were poor. In all cases, further development and testing are needed before
the technology could be used in a screen printing facility.
I . •
Sodium Bicarbonate-Based Screen Reclamation Technology Application Method
i -
At this time, the sodium bicarbonate-based technology has not been developed
specifically for screen reclamation. It has been successful in replacing hazardous cleaning
chemicals in other applications such as in metal parts degreasing and paint and adhesives
removal. To determine if this technology could be adapted for screen reclamation, three
screens were prepared for cleaning: one with solvent-based ink, one with UV-cured ink, and
a third screen with water-based ink. All tests were conducted at the equipment
manufacturer's facility. This particular manufacturer developed the enclosed spray cabinet,
and is a distributor of the sodium bicarbonate. Because this technology is still under
development and is unproven for screen reclamation, no demonstrations were conducted at
printing facilities. An observer from the DfE project was present to record information on
the system's performance in cleaning the three test screens.
Tests were conducted in two different enclosures. Half of each screen was first
cleaned in an enclosure which delivered dry, pressurized baking soda to the screen. The
second half of each screen was cleaned in an enclosure which delivered both pressurized
water and baking soda. The same cleaning procedure was used for the two systems. After
excess ink was carded off, the screen was placed inside the enclosure with the flat side
down. The door was locked and the operator placed his hands through the gloves built into
the box. By stepping on the foot pedal, the operator started the flow of pressurized sodium
bicarbonate from the fan nozzle mounted in the top of the enclosure. The fan nozzle,
designed by the enclosure manufacturer, spreads out the impact of the sodium bicarbonate
to reduce the stress on the screen. The nozzle used for testing dispersed the sodium
bicarbonate over an area approximately ojne inch wide by three inches long. On the wet
system, the same nozzle was used to deliver the sodium bicarbonate, and the water nozzle
i
! 75 " •
-------
was mounted on the fan nozzle, so that the water and baking soda mixed together as they.
were discharged. Holding the screen under the fan nozzle, the operator moved the screen
from side to side. The operator was able tb see where the ink or emulsion remained on the
screen by watching through the primary viewing area. This window was purged with air to
enhance visibility by clearing the dust from the viewing area. When the first side was clean,
the operator flipped the screen over and repeated the cleaning procedure on the other side
until all ink, emulsion, and haze were removed.
Summary of Alternative Sodium Bicarbona'te Technology Performance Results
Cleaning without Water i
During the demonstration, several different application methods were tested to
optimize the system performance. First, the screen with solvent-based ink was cleaned in
a dry box; only pressurized baking soda was delivered, without any water. At a pressure
of 5 psi, some of the ink and emulsion were removed, but very slowly. A heavy haze and
some ink and emulsion residue remained. To accelerate the removal, the pressure was
increased to 10 psi. This pressure proved to be too high and the screen developed pin holes
and eventually ripped. The pressure was!reduced to 5 psi. To reduce the stress on the
mesh, a flat plate was placed behind the scjreen. Screen damage was reduced, but was not
eliminated.
the water-based ink screen. Significant ink and
after cleaning a 4 inch by 4 inch area for 5
Similar results were obtained with
emulsion residue remained on the screen
minutes. Again, screen wear and small holes were visible in some areas. After these
disappointing results, dry testing was discontinued in favor of the wet delivery system. The
water serves to soften the sodium bicarbonate, making it less abrasive than the dry delivery
process. Because of the softening effect,j a higher pressure could be used with the wet
delivery system without damaging the screen.
After such poor performance was demonstrated using the dry cleaning process on the
solvent- and water-based ink screens, the decision was made to skip the dry process for the
UV ink screen, and start with the wet cleaning process. Additionally, the UV ink does not
dry (unlike the solvent- and water-based inks), and the manufacturer felt that the application
of the dry sodium bicarbonate would stick t!o the wet ink across the entire screen, instead of
removing the ink. If the sodium bicarbonate was covering the screen, the wet cleaning
process test would not be valid.
Cleaning with Water ,
All three screens were tested using the wet process (cleaning with water). Water was
sprayed onto the screen at 200 - 250 psi, vjrhile the sodium bicarbonate was sprayed out of
a fan nozzle at varying pressures. On the screens where the dry process was used to clean
half the screen, the wet process was used for the other half. Performance clearly improved
using the wet technology.
On the screen with UV ink, the sodium bicarbonate-based technology was completely
i ••',- '. -
' . . 176 , '
-------
ineffective. After about 5 minutes of cleaning, there was almost no removal of the ink or
the emulsion. The operator increased the pressure to 20 psi to improve the system
performance. When there was no improvement at 20 psi, the pressure was increased to 30
psi. Even at the higher pressure, there was no significant removal of the ink or the emulsion
from the screen. The operator put a glass! plate behind the screen to concentrate the sodium
bicarbonate and to support the screen, but this did not help to remove the ink or emulsion
After approximately 10 minutes of cleaning without any noticeable removal of ink, the test
was stopped.
The solvent-based ink screen was | cleaned first. At 5 psi, it took approximately 5
minutes to remove the ink and emulsion from a 4 inch by 4 inch area of the screen. At this
point the screen was visually inspected. There was no visible damage to the screen, so the
pressure was increased to 10 psi. Another! 4 inch by 4 inch area was cleaned, and at 10 psi,
it took approximately 3 minutes. Some greas of the emulsion came off in stringy pieces.
After cleaning the rest of the screen, a liglit haze remained in the image area. Around the
edges of the screen where the ink was fairly thick, a heavy residue remained, but there was
no ink or emulsion residue in the image area. Total screen cleaning time for the half of the
screen that was cleaned with the wet cleaning process (a 10 inch by 10 inch area), took
approximately 16 minutes.
Performance on the screen with water-based ink was similar to the screen with
solvent-based ink. On the water-based inkj screen, all testing was conducted with the sodium
bicarbonate pressure at 10 psi. Initially, the ink started to come off fairly well, but very
slowly. After a few minutes, the ink began flaking off, instead of dissolving. The flakiing
made it significantly easier to remove the iiik. Again, the emulsion came off in stringy rolls.
Ink residue remained around the edges of I the screen, but the image area was clean with a
very slight haze. After closer inspection, some very small spots of ink; residue were
apparent. In an effort to remove these spots, the operator concentrated the spray on the
small effected area. After one or two minutes, this concentrated pressure ripped the screen.
Total cleaning time for the portion of the screen that was cleaned with wet cleaning (10
inches by 10 inches), was approximately 13 minutes.
Alternative Sodium Bicarbonate Technoloev Potential
i
The cleaning procedures used during testing were the methods used for cleaning metal
parts and were not specifically developed for screen reclamation. With further testing and
research, this application method could be (improved to clean the screens faster and with less
possibility for screen damage. For example, during the test, a piece of rigid material (safety
glass) was held behind the screen to reduce the pressure on the mesh. From the limited
testing performed, this support seemed to concentrate the cleaning media on the desired area
while reducing the stress on the screen. As another change that may improve performance,
the operator suggested using hot water. W^ien cleaning the screens with solvent- and water-
based ink, the emulsion came off in string'y pieces that rolled off the screen. This reaction
did not seem to increase or decrease the ijemoval efficiency, however, hot water may help
dissolve the emulsion, potentially accelerating the removal process. A third possible
i .-,",-•••- .'.-,.- ,, i
77
• i". .••';"• : - . .' • .
-------
I • •
improvement in the application technique may be to add a small platform inside the enclosure
which would help the operator hold the screen closer to the spray nozzle.
i
In addition to equipment modifications, several other variable changes that may be
specific to each facility should also be investigated. These factors include increasing or
decreasing the particle size of sodium bicarbonate, changing the pressure of the water or the
sodium bicarbonate, and changing the rate Jof delivery of the medium. With further research
into improvements in the sodium bicarbonate application, this technology could potentially
reduce chemical use during screen reclamation for printers using solvent-based or water-
based inks. I
78
-------
APPENDIX A: FACILITY BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE
Design for the Environment Screen Printing Project
1. Business Profile
a. Products
Approximately what percentage of your products are printed on the following
substrates? (Please check all boxes
that apply).
Plastics (rigid/flexible)
Paper (coated or uncoated)
Metal
Ceramic
Glass
Other (specify)
<50%
D
D
D
a
a
a
50-95%
a
n
a
a
a
a
95 - 100%
n
n
n
a
n
a
b. Please list the major products produced at your facility:
c. Approximately what percentage |of your shippable product, by sales dollars, is
produced through screen printing? I
I
d. Approximately how long is your typical run?
e. Approximately what percentage |of your orders are repeat orders?
79
-------
2. Screen Reclamation Operations
a. Screen Size: Specify the average size frame used at your facility:
(Jforin2) |
i
b. Tracking: Describe how your screens are tracked or numbered in the facility:
c. Volume:
What is the average number of screens cleaned/reclaimed each day for future use?
(Please check the appropriate box)i
0-5 D 5-10 D 10-15 D >15 D (specify ;
d. Employees
Please fill in the table below. For the purposes of this questionnaire, "Ink
Removal" is not defined as press-slide operations, unless this is the only site used
for ink removal. Assume a 5-day Work week with one 8-hour shift each day.
Please check all boxes that apply.
Number of
Employees
at this
Location
0-5 D
6-10 n
11-15 n
16-30 D
31-50 D
>5o . n
Number of
Employees
Involved in
Ink Removal
1-3 n
4-6 n
7-10 n
>n n
specify
Number of i
Involved i
Cleaning/R(
1-3
4-6
7-10
>11
specify
employees
i Screen
clamation
a
a
a
n
Average time
(hr/day) a single
individual is
involved w/ ink
removal
-------
- If "yes", check all that apply in the first four columns of the table below.
i
- If "no", check all that apply in the last 2 columns of the table below.
Separate areas for ink removal and screen
cleaning/reclamation activities
Ink
Removal
Area (ft2)
<2o n
20-50 D
50 - 100 D
100-20CD
>200 D
(specify):
Type of
Ventilation
local (mechanical)!]
plant D
natural D
other D
(specify):
Screen
Reclamati
Area (ft8)
<20
20-50
m
D
n
50- 100 JD
100-200
>200
(specify):
"
n
n
Type of
Ventilation
local (mechanical P
plant D
natural D
other D
(specify):
Combined Ink Removal/
Screen Reclamation Areas
Size of
Combined
Area (ft2)
<2o n
20-50 D
5o-ioo n
100 - 200 n
>2oo n
(specify):
Ventilation
local D
plant D
natural D
other D
(specify):
3. Rates
a. Record the electric rate:
b. Record the water rate:
c. Record the sewer rate:
d. Record the screen reclamation employee's wage rate:
I -,• . . • .
e. Record the printer's wage rate:
(Use the rate for the
printer who would determine ifthe\print image quality is acceptable).
4. Current Ink Remover Procedures (NOT process cleaning)
a. What type of ink(s) do you use?
81
-------
b. Do you recycle ink removal products? Yes D No D
|
- Do you recycle on-site or! off-site?
- Do you use the recycled product in-house? Yes D No D
If so, how much do; you use annually?
gallons
- If recycled off-site, does the recycler sell the recycled product?
- What are the costs and income associated with recycling ink removal
!
I
products?
c. On average, to how many screens/day is ink remover applied?
d. Describe the current method of j applying ink remover:
e. Do you use a pressure washer (or other equipment) for ink removal?
- If so, specify the type of equipment, manufacturer, and model (from
nameplate): ,
- Specify the pressure (psi) and flowrate (gpm):
i -
- What are the equipment energy use specifications (from nameplate):
I
- How long is it in use for each screen?
f. Fill in the table on the next page for each of your ink remover products.
82
-------
O 3
a a n a n
s I
n a
oo ;
a
n
II
J,
CM S
o 5
a
a a
I
I
£
a a
i.'.
I
n
n
a
1!
!
n n
•Jt
•c
83
-------
O: ET ! Q" D -Q
84
-------
i
I
1
.3
I
l:
•t
•S
"SR-
gs?
H O <
i!
3s *
I"!
li
i
si
S
1-1
1
-fl*
n
n
II
t3
n
n
n
S
1
a
n n
n n
I
§'
I.
1¥
.
sr
n n
a n
4A
1 J
!l
D
55
85
-------
I
1
I
O
Oi
IT-
i
.3
Cu
§
1
8'
I
1
- P"
5 S
!||;
ig l.g:
e *••
III:
Ills
s B J i I
IS
.SS
13
<«
n
D
n
p
n
n
1&»
n
n
D i
n i
a
a
-If
s
a
n
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
n
1
a
n
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
n
n
a
a
n
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
n
n
a
a
.9 a
f2
2
-4 m
25" S.
n
D
n
n
n
n
S-
S6
-------
8. Waste Disposal
I
a. Please indicate the quantity of Waste you dispose of annually as hazardous
waste for: , |
spent solvent waste:
drums)
(gal. in bulk) OR
ink waste:
drums)
used shop rag waste
drums)
j (gal. in bulk) OR
(gal. in bulk) OR
(# of 55 gal.
(# of 55 gal.
(# of 55 gal.
b. Ink Removal and Screen Cleaning Wastes
Fill in the table below to describe the treatment and disposal methods used for
waste (not only hazardous wastes) generated by the ink removal and screen
cleaning/reclamation operations: j
Ink Removal Area Wastes !
Quantity
Generated
Annually
-------
9. Drying \
a. Are screens dried between ink removal and emulsion removal?
- If yes, how are they dried? (air dried or dried with equipment such as
fans, heater, etc.) - If drying equipment is used, note:
- Duration of drying step:
- Manufacturer and model of the equipment:
- Energy usej specifications:
b. Are screens dried between emulsion removal and haze removal?
- If yes, how are they dried? (air dried or dried with equipment such as
fans, heater, etc.)
- If drying equipment is used, note:
- Duration of drying step:
- Manufacturer and model of the equipment:
- Energy use specifications:
-------
APPENDIX B:
Observer's {Evaluation Sheet
Facility name:
Date:
Screen reclamation employees(s):_
Location:
Facility contact name/phone:_
1. Type of Demonstration:
check one: Standard Products
Alternative Products _
2. Operating Conditions
Record the information on the screen being cleaned on the table below:
Screen Information
scsE^foa-GDmos
Screen identification
and history
Screen size
tt impressions of the
last nun
Screen degreaser
Ink type
Ink color
Emulsion type
Ink coverage
Ftttm&t blank or. eiretftfe np^fOfruKe-fitafae^fistte, &rice&fytttite» arteii'uiie.ntz in &»tpw»ta tb?
rt&t. ""/"" "' '" """ '
• Enter the identification marking code that is on the screen:
• Estimate the number of impressions printed over the life of this screen:
i
• Estimate how much ink was left\on the screen? (< avg., avg., > avg.)
x " ("specify units: ir? or ff)
* Specify manufacturer and series] # or name:
• i
• Circle one: ' '
Solvent-based, UV, or water-based
• Specify manufacturer and series, ft or name:
• Circle one: "
Blue, Black, Other (specify):
• Circle one:
Capillary film, Direct photo stencil, Dual cured, Other (specify):
• Specify manufacturer and series] it or name:
• Check one:
. 0-25%. ..IH 25 -5096... D 50- 7556... D 75- 10096... D
89
-------
Screen condition
Screen mounting
Thread count
Thread diameter
Tension level (measure
both major axes; specify
units)
Mesh type (record type
of mesh material)
Mesh treatment (has
the mesh been abraded?
calendared? or
treated?)
Calibration of
measurements
Temperature fin the
work area)
../
Humidity fin the work
area)
Note any rips, holes, corrosion
Is a retensionable frame used?
Is the screen glued to the frame?
threads/inch
(specify unite)
major axis:
•
N/cm
!
minor axis: ; N/cm
scoop(s) of haze remover
= ounces
• Ink removal area: i °F
• Emulsion/Haze removal area:
• Ink removal area:
• Emulsion/Haze removal area:
«F
%•
%
! 90
-------
3. Cleaning Procedure
• Clean the screen using the application (technique designated by SPTF for alternative products or
follow your typical screen reclamation procedure if demonstrating the currently used products.
Observe all actions taken by the employee Jin reclaiming the screen and record any differences between
the technique used and the technique specified by SPTF for alternative products or the technique
documented in the facility questionnaire for products currently used at the facility.
Cleaning Procedure:
• For currently used products, are any variations of the reclamation procedure used, and if so, under
what circumstances? For what percentage of screens, or how often are these method variations used?
• Describe any temperature or humidity controls in the screen reclamation area.
i • • • •: •
i __ - •
4. Performance j
Complete the performance evaluation table on the next page for alternative products and for currently
used products. I
91
-------
Performance Evaluation
I
Drying Time
(specify units; hours or mins.)
Dilution
(record dilution ratio or enter
"None")
Quantity of Product Used
Time to clean
(do not include screen
positioning or equipment clean
up time)
Physical effort required
(circle one for each step and
describe effort used)
If wipes were used for ink
removal, specify the type,
size and quantity used.
Was a pressure washer used?
(check one for each step)
Enter quantity, comments^ and notes
• Time from end of press run to start of ink removal with product:
• Time from ink removal
completed to start of emulsion removal:
• Time from emulsion removal completed to start of haze removal:
• Ink Remover
• Emulsion Remover
• Haze Remover
• Ink Remover
• Emulsion Remover
• Haze Remover
• Ink Remover
• Emulsion Remover
• Haze Remover
• Ink Remover:
circle one: Low, Modert
• Emulsion Remover:
circle one: Low, Modera
• Haze Remover:
circle one: Low, Modera
• For Ink Removal:
No T
(enter ratio) or "none"
(enter ratio) or "none "
(enter ratio) or "none"
(enter # of ounces)
(enter # of ounces)
(enter # of ounces or scoops)
minutes
minutes
minutes
te, High. Describe:
'
te, High. Describe:
'
te, High. Describe:
:
fes (specify length of time used mins.)
• For Emulsion Removal:'
No Yes (specify length of time used mins.)
• For Haze Removal:
No Yes (specify length of time used mins.)
! 92
-------
Was tap water (NOT
pressure wash) used in any
part of screen
cleaning/reclamation?
Was (non-pressurized) w|ater used in (check all that apply):
Ink Removal...D or Emulsion Removal...D or Haze Removal...D
Flowrate:
Length of time used: j_
_(gallons/minute)
(specify seconds or minutes)
Examine screen after ink
removal.
• Did the product effectively and easily remove the ink? Also note any side effects of the
product on the mesh): j
Examine screen after
emulsion removal.
• Is there any ink haze or stencil stain on the mesh? If so, describe in detail:
If any emulsion is still
present, describe the residue left on the screen in detail:
I
• Note any side effects on the screen (e.g., mesh damage, corrosion, etc.)
Examine screen after
reclamation is complete.
• Can the screen be reused for all jobs? (check one) Yes No
If "No", describe why the screen cannot be reused or what limitations apply:
(e.g., Is there is a ghost image? Can the screen be used for reverse printing? for
close tolerance work? Can transparent inks be used with it?)
Remeasure the screen tension
of both major axes and record
(specify units)
• major axis: _
• minor axis:
_N/cm
N/cm
Examine the substrate image
after the screen is reused.
Comniciit on the print u
quality.
Comments or suggestions - Use the back of this sheet to note anything unusual about this demonstration, (e.g., did you have
to reapply any of the products? was mis screen more difficult to clean than others?)
93
-------
5. Experience with Alternative Screen Reclamation Products
a. Have you tried any alternative chemical products to replace your current screen reclamation
products? I
- If yes, please list the product trade name(s) and the generic product type(s):
- Why were the alternative prodi ;ct(s) better, the same, or worse than your old product?
- If you have not tried a different chemical product, please check the box that best describes
your reason for not trying alternatives:
Lack of adequate information to evaluate environmental performance:
Operators do not believe alternatives will work:
Not impressed with product descriptions:
Cost is prohibitive: j
Other: (please explain): j
I
n
n
n
n
n
b. Besides alternative chemical products, have you implemented any changes in equipment, procedures
or work practices that reduced your use of screen reclamation chemicals, or reduce the time, effort
or water required to use those products? :Yes D No D
i
- If yes, please describe: I
c. Does this facility have a pollution prevention, waste minimization, or source reduction program?
- If yes, please describe:
94
-------
APPENDIX C:
1
Ink Remover Evaluation Sheet for Printers
Facility name and Location:
1, . .
1 . ' '
Date: , ! Ink Remover employee's name:
1
Answer Ihtfittemng questions r^afi^sff^^ii^^^tAfntaa^pnfi^ff^Tmamei
' Screen identification and history
Screen size
Screen condition and threads per
inch
Mesh
# impressions of the screen's last
run
Ink type
Ink color
Emulsion type
% Ink Coverage
Drying Time
Ink Remover Dilution
Quantity of Ink Remover
Time
Physical effort required
How many wipes did yon use?
Was a -pressure washer used?
Examine screen after ink
removal.
• Enter the identification marking code for the screen:
1
• Estimate how much jfcfc was left on the screen?
1
inches x 1 inches
• Note screen condition including any rips, holes, corrosion:
• Record the screen mesh size: threads/inch
• Mesh material type:\
\
• Mesh treatment: \
\
\
• Circle one: Solvent-based, UV, Water-based
• Specify manufacturer and series #:
• Circle one: \ Blue, . Black, Other (specify):
1
• Circle one: Capillary film, Direct photo, Dual cure, Other:
• Specify manufacturer and series #:
• Check one: 0^2556. .in 25-5056. .D 50-7556. .D 75-100%. .D
Time from end of press run to start of ink removal
|
(enter ratio) or "none"
oz.i
Enter time from application of ink remover product until screen is
\
mins.
ready for the next step:
(circle rating and comment)
Low, Moderate, High
1
' ' i
(check one) Yes i No
Did the ink remover effectively and easily remove the ink? (Also note any side effects of the
product on die screen)
i
Comments or suggestions - Record any comments and note {anything unusual about the reclamation on a
(e.g., did you have to reapply the product? why was the screen hard to clean?)
separate sheet of paper.
95
-------
I
APPENDIX D:
Emulsion Remover Evaluation Sheet for Printers
Facility name and location:
Date:
waiuati
Screen Reclamation employee's name:
I
Fill in the blank/circle the appropriate answer. Make any notes or comments in the space to the right.
Screen Identification
Drying Time
(Specify units; hours or mins.)
Dilution
Quantity of Product Used
Product Use .Time
Was a pressure washer used?
Physical effort required
(circle one for each step and
describe the level of effort)
Examine screen after emulsion
removal.
Examine screen after
reclamation is complete.
Examine the substrate image
after the screen is reused.
• Enter the identificatior.
marking (tracking) code for the screen:
• Time from ink removal completed to start of emulsion removal:
• Time from emulsion removal completed to start of haze removal:
• Emulsion Remover
• Haze Remover
(ratio) or none
(ratio) or none
Enter # of ounces used:
• Emulsion Remover ounces
• Haze Remover • ounces
Enter time from applicat
• Emulsion Remover
• Haze Remover
'on of product until screen is ready for the next step
mins.
mins.
• For emulsion removal? (check one) Yes No
• For haze removal? | (check one) Yes No
• Emulsion Remover:
circle one: Low, Med.,
Describe if the stencil di
took place:
• Haze Remover:
circle one: Low, Med.,
Describe the effort requi
• Is there any ink haze c
• If any emulsion is still
• Can the screen be reui
If "No", describe whj
screen be used for revei
inks be used with it?)
High;
ssolved easily or slowly, and if a great deal or very little scrubbing
_
High;
red for haze removal:
r stencil stain on the mesh? If so, describe:
present, describe the residue left on the screen in detail:
ed for all jobs? Yes No
the screen cannot be reused: (e.g., Is there is a ghost image? Can the
se printing? Can it be used for close tolerance work? Can transparent
Comment on the print image quality:
i
Comments - Record any comments and note anything unusu
reapply the product? why was this screen more difficult to cl
il about the reclamation on a separate sheet, (e.g., did you have to
ian?)
96
-------
APPENDIX E:
Weekly Follow-up Call to Screen Printers
in the DfE Performance Demonstration Project
Once a week, the observer will contact the facility by phone. This form is to guide the
conversation, but let the printer discuss any problems, changes or concerns. Remind them
to send in the envelope with this week's forms.
I :
1. In your opinion, is the performance of ijhe alternative products better, worse or about the
same as the products you used before this! demonstration? Why?
2. Have you found any conditions where the products did not work? (e.g., is there any fink
type or emulsion type where the product did not work?) If so, describe the condition(s).
3. Have you found any conditions (ink type, emulsion type, etc.) where the products work
particularly well? If so, please describe the conditions).
4. Have you changed the application procedure in any way to improve product performance?
If so, please describe. For example, i
• do you apply the product I to the screen sooner?
• do you let the product sitlsoak on the screen longer?
• have you used a different! type of brush? or scrubber? or wipe?
97
-------
5. Have you tried any different application techniques that did not improve performance?
• What did you change? • Why diji you make the change?
• Was product performance worse! after the change? How?
6. Have you changed the quantity of product you use? Why?
7. How are you timing how long you use! each product? (i.e., are you estimating the time
or are you actually tuning it?)
8. What measurement method are you using? Are you still using the same spray bottle and
the same scoop provided?
9. Do you think the screen failure rate has increased, decreased or remained the same as a
result of using the new product? What signs have you seen that suggest the failure rate may
differ? I
10. Do you have any other comments or concerns regarding the alternative products?
98
-------
APPENDIX F: Methodology Used in the Screen Reclamation Performance
Demonstrations
Note: This methodology incorporates comments from discussions with the Screen Printing
Technical Foundation, the Screen printing Association International, screen printers,
and manufacturers and suppliers of screen reclamation products and equipment.
I. PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION OVERVIEW
| . •
A. Goal i
I- " ' • "
The objective of this performance) demonstration is twofold: (1) to obtain specific
information from printing facilities concerning the performance of commercial chemical amd
mechanical screen reclamation systems; (2) to encourage printers to experiment with new
products and work practices that reduce human health and environmental risk. This data will
be incorporated into the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment.
B. General Plan
The majority of printers participating in the performance demonstration will evaluate
the effectiveness of one manufacturer product line/system for screen reclamation, using a
method that includes the use of ink removisr, emulsion remover and haze remover products
in screen reclamation. Each facility will b<3 responsible for reclaiming screens over a thirty-
day period, utilizing the specified product system. The performance of one or two
substitution processes relying on specially equipped mechanical and/or chemical reclamation
cleaning systems will be demonstrated, including: (1) high-pressure water blaster; (2) sodium
bicarbonate reclaim system. j
| • • -
C. Desired Characteristics to be Reported from Performance Demonstrations
1. Actual cost of chemical product or reclamation equipment
Definition: Cost per volume used per area of screen cleaned (ft2).
We will ask that product manufacturers include the average purchase price of
their individual products (haze remover, stencil remover, ink remover,
reclamation equipment) when the product/equipment is submitted for the
performance demonstration] The adjusted or actual cost of screen reclamation
products will be determined through incorporation of product purchase price,
product application cost, labor costs, and safety and disposal costs.
99
-------
I
Product constraints I
Example: Whether the prcjduct category (e.g. ink remover) is incompatible
with certain types of inks
This information should be! submitted by the manufacturers and may also be
discovered as a result of the' performance testing. If the manufacturer does not
provide any information regarding product incompatibilities, we will assume
that there are no incompatibility concerns.
Special storage, safety and disposal requirements
Examples: Flammability or volatility of the product
i
This information will be requested on the manufacturer questionnaire and will
vary according to the chemicals comprising the products/equipment to be
submitted. We will ask tiiat manufacturers provide recommendations on
disposal or treatment of wastes associated with the use of their products, irhe
storage costs will be a factor in determining the adjusted cost of the product.
Ease of use
Definition:
The physical effort required to effectively clean the screen
using the test product
This is a subjective standard based on the judgment of the screen cleaner and
printer. As a frame of reference, the screen reclamation employee or facility
point-of-contact will be asked to describe their current work practices for
screen reclamation and the physical effort required with their current system.
When the performance information is tabulated for each manufacturer system
demonstrated at a facility, the data regarding the products currently used at
the facility will also be noted.
I
Duration of the Cleaning Cycle
Definition: The measured time of the screen cleaning process (e.g.
beginning with the application of ink removal product to the
screen until the final water wash is completed)
This will attempt to measure the labor costs associated with the use of the
products. Labor costs will be based on the time required for the screen
reclamation with the specific products and a standard screen cleaning wage.
100
-------
6. Physical/Chemical properties of the screen reclamation system
!
Definition: Characteristics associated with use of the individual system,
such as chemical components or pressure at which chemicals
are applied. {
I . . „ .
The chemical components of each product system must be submitted by each
manufacturer participating j in the demonstration project. The physical
characteristics of each system as used, including such factors as water
pressure as applied and |type of specialized equipment used, will be
documented.
|
7. Effectiveness of the screen reclamation system
i
This is a subjective criteria! and depends on the judgment of the printer and
the employee reclaiming screens at the facility. They will examine the screen
after the reclamation proces's is complete and answer two questions: (1) Can
this screen be reused for general screen printing purposes?; (2) Can this
screen be used to print a reverse image? These questions will not be answered
solely on the basis of the screen appearance. When the screen is reused for
printing, any problems with ghost images or weak screens will be
documented. |
8. Screen, stencil and ink information
i - • • "' .. . •
The majority of screens reclaimed in the demonstration project should have
a monofilament polyester mesh with a nominal thread count in the range of
230-390 Me/in. However, if the screen mesh thread count is outside of this
range, the data will be documented. Data recorded for each screen reclaimed
should include threads per inch, the age of the screen and the prior printing
history of the screen. The length of time between the end of the press run and
the actual screen reclamation should be estimated. The color and type of ink,
and the type of emulsion will also be reported. If possible, the tension level
(N/m) of the screen should! be recorded. The condition of the screen (rips,
tears) before and after the test will be reported. The printing performance of
the screen after it has been reclaimed will also be documented. This
descriptive information serves two purposes: (1) it provides data to determine
the specific effectiveness of jthe methods and various product lines; (2) it may
assist in discovering and reporting incompatibilities between the products and
types of inks and emulsions.
I 101
-------
H. METHODOLOGY FOR ON-SITE PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
i -
A. Selection of Products for the Performance Demonstration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
i ' - • .
Products will be submitted jby manufacturers in two shipments. One shipment
of screen reclamation products, in bucket; containers with manufacturer labels,
will be sent to SPTF/SPAl] along with a [standard OSHA MSDS; the quantity
shipped should be sufficient to clean 3 screens of 10 ft? each. The
manufacturer will also shipjto SPAI a quantity of product necessary to reclaim
50 screens at the volunteer jprinting facility. SPAI will determine the quantity
required for each site and notify the manufacturer prior to shipment.
SPTF will determine the effectiveness of all of the products submitted. Iftiis
will include evaluating the standard manufacturer instructions for each product
and ensuring that the application technique specified for that product will
enable the product to work effectively.! ^Y instructions for an individual
product pertaining to dilution or mixing' will be followed. If the application
technique specified for a particular product is determined to limit the
effectiveness of the product or in |any other way negatively affect
performance, a second application technique will be chosen and tested.
i . . i
The effectiveness of each j product system will be tested with up to three
different ink types (solvent-based, UV-cured, and water-based), depending on
the recommendations of the manufacturer. The specific methodology for the
SPTF testing is detailed in a separate document (see Appendix G). Only
products deemed effective by SPTF will be used hi the field demonstration
portion of the project.
The selection of printers will take into account the type of inks primarily used
and any specialized application equipment. SPAI will match printers with
appropriate screen reclamation products. The in-field demonstrations will only
include screens on which solvent-based or UV inks have been used. However,
if screens on which water-based inks have been used are reclaimed with the
product system, the data will be documented.
After SPTF has completed the initial screening of the effectiveness of
products, SPAI will ship the screen reclamation products to the screen printers
participating in the field demonstrations. Products will be packaged in
generic containers (no screen product manufacturer markings). The printer
will receive the masked product that has a masked OSHA MSDS and a
generic label. For all other aspects of the demonstration project, products
will be identified only by a letter code.
102
-------
B. Documentation of Standard Work Practices at Facility
1. The observer will visit the facility and explain the project thoroughly to both
the facility point-of-contactj and employees involved in printing and screen
reclamation. Prior to the observer's visit, the facility will have received, a
Facility Background Questionnaire. When on-site, the observer will verify
that this questionnaire has bben accurately completed. Information categories
on the questionnaire include; 1) general facility operations (types of products,
number of employees), 2) |screen reclamation operations (equipment used,
number of screens reclaimed), 3) current reclamation products (application
procedures, trade names), 4) storage and disposal practices.
2. The observer will verify the questionnaire and document any other relevant
information on the general! facility operations. Recorded information will
include the types of products printed, the printing substrates, the typical run
length, and the water, sewer, and electric rates for the facility.
3. The observer will verify the questionnaire and document any other relevant
information on the screen reclamation operations. The observer will
document the size and general specifics of the screen reclamation area(s),
including the type of ventilation. The observer will also briefly describe the
experience of the employee(s) participating in the test, including past
experiences with testing of'screen reclamation products, and document any
potential biases. j
4. The observer will verify the questionnaire and document any other relevant
information on the facility's current reclamation products. The observer will
record the trade name and purchase price of the current screen reclamation
products. The observer will document the current work practices by observing
screen reclamation utilizing the present method and products used by the
facility. The specifics of the screen to be cleaned, such as threads per inch,
ink type, color of ink, emulsion type, age, size, tension level and printing
history (including estimated time between the end of the press run and
reclamation), will be recorded. The physical condition of the screen (small
rips, etc.) will be documented before and after the reclamation. The observer
will note any pie-application dilution of the product. The observer will
measure the quantity of each' product applied to the screen and record the time
required for each cleaning step, and the overall cleaning of the screen, from
application of the ink remover product to the final water wash.
i '••--.
5. The observer will verify the questionnaire and document any other relevant
information on the facility's storage and disposal practices. The observer
will note how the products jare stored in bulk and in the screen reclamation
area. The current waste and rag disposal practices and costs will be
documented by the observer..
I •
! 103
-------
il Demonstration an
t the Printi
1. The employee involved in! the performance demonstration will prepare to
clean one screen using the masked products supplied for the ink removal,
emulsion removal and haze removal steps. The employee will use the
application technique designated by SPTF for each product. Prior to the
reclamation process, the observer will document any pre-application dilution
of the products that is necessary. The observer will note all characteristics of
the screen as outlined hi BJ4.
I "
2. The employee will begin screen reclamation. The observer will record the
quantity of each product that is applied to the screen. The observer will
record all actions taken byj the employee hi reclaiming the screen to ensure
adherence to any specific j instructions. The observer will tune the entire
process, from the application of the ink remover to the final water wash.
! •'
3. The observer will record the effectiveness of the product system in reclaiming
the screen, based on visible appearance and the judgment of the printer and
the screen cleaning employee. The observer will ask if the screen can be used
again for printing and if there are any printing limitations, such as whether
it can be used to print a reverse. After the screen is used again for printing,
any problems with the screen, such as ghost images or damaged mesh, will
be documented by the printer.
4. A second and third screen Will then be cleaned using the same method. The
observer will follow the process outlined in steps 1-3. The purpose of
cleaning three screens is to ensure that the screen cleaning employee: is
familiar with the cleaning method and products, before beginning longer-term
testing. |
j •- ' : * ' -
D. Phase II; Further Demonstration of System Effectiveness at the Printing Facility
1. After completion of the j above demonstration, the screen reclamation
performance demonstration will continue to be performed by the facility
through the next thirty jdays. The masked products supplied by the
manufacturer will be used to reclaim these screens. The observer will not be
present during this phase jof testing. The employee responsible for screen
reclamation will record the characteristics of each screen cleaned (see B.4.),
the volume of product used! for each step in the process, and the effectiveness
of the manufacturer system in reclaiming the screen (taking into account
future printing performance of each screen). To simplify this process, a short
evaluation sheet will be used.
104
-------
I
2. During the thirty day demonstration period, the observer will interview the
facility contact every w^ek over the telephone to document facts or
perceptions concerning the reclamation process that could be helpful in
determining the effectiveness of the products used. The observer will
determine if there has been any deviation from the initial reclamation
procedures. If there has Iseen a deviation, the observer shall record the
reasons for the deviation. A work sheet will be developed that will guide the
observer through the questions they should ask. The observer will document
each conversation on the york sheet, which will subsequently become the
telephone log for the facility.
I
3. If at any time during the long-term phase of the demonstration there is a
problem, the screen reclamation employee or facility point of contact will
document the specific problem and call SFTF for guidance. Any corrective
action will be documented' by both the industry specialist and the facility
employee. j
1 • '
£. Trouble-shooting
1. If problems arise during the field demonstration of the screen reclamation
methods and products, the following procedures will be followed. If the
observer is present, the problem will be documented and the observer will call
SPTF/SPAI for guidance. If the observer is not present, the facility employee
will document the problem land contact SPTF/SPAI.
1 •
2. SPTF will first review the procedures used by the facility employee to ensure
they are in compliance with the instructions provided with the product. If the
procedures are correct, then SPTF will contact the manufacturer for
assistance. SPTF will relay and filter the recommendation of the manufacturer
to the printer. SPTF/SPAI (will ensure the confidentiality of the products is
maintained during this period. The identity of the product in the field will
remain masked. The observer will document all actions taken.
i ., -
3. If the recommendations provided by SPTF/SPAI are unsuccessful, the facility
employee can attempt to solve the problem. The observer will document the
actions taken by the employee responsible for screen reclamation and the
success or failure of the actions.
i
! • - •
4. If a medical emergency arises, CHEMTREC, the emergency response center
of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, has volunteered to respond to
emergency phone calls to the manufacturer by identifying masked products
with chemical components and providing medical information. The phone
number for CHEMTREC will be the emergency phone number listed on the
MSDS. i
105
-------
APPENDIX G: Methodology for SPTF Performance Demonstrations
A. Purpose of Testing
Performance data will be collected jfor each product system in a laboratory setting at
the Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) and also in production runs at 23 volunteer
facilities. The testing methodology for thejboth phases of the demonstrations was developed
by consensus with the involvement of EPA; product manufacturers, and screen printers. The
protocol was designed to allow the evaluation of the maximum number of product systems
given the resources available to the project.
The intent of the SPTF evaluations is to assure that the product systems sent to
printers would provide an acceptable level of performance. Screening at SPTF will also
provide another set of observations to compare with in-facility demonstration results. AIL
evaluations will be conducted under consistent screen conditions (e.g., tension, mesh type,
emulsion type, thread count, image) and ezich product system will be tested on three imaged
screens; one with solvent-based ink, one tyith UV-cured ink and one with water-based ink.
B. Testing Methodology
| : .. -
Evaluate each product system as follows:
i
1. Prepare three screens for printing according to the parameters listed in section
C. ' |
2. Place a sufficient quantity of the solvent-based ink in the stenciled screen and
thoroughly work into the screen with a squeegee. Card out extra ink ajid
allow the screen to sit for approximately 15 minutes. Remove the ink from
the screen following the instructions provided to SPTF by the manufacturer.
Wipe or wash off the ink (depending on instructions) until it appears that no
more ink is coming off on the cloth or in the rinse. Use only enough product
to accomplish ink removal to this degree. Record the application procedure,
the time it takes to complete, the ink removal (time using a digital stop watch),
the amount of product used (measure to the nearest 0.5 ounce), the
temperature, humidity, product dilution ratio, number of wipes used, ease of
use, and comment on the product performance.
i
3. Repeat step 2 on the second screen using UV-cured ink and on the third
screen using water-based ink.
j .
4. Allow each screen to sit {for approximately 8 hours to simulate a shop
situation. Record the time delay for each screen. Apply the emulsion
remover to the screen according to the manufacturers instructions. Record the
application procedure, the time it takes to complete the emulsion removal
106
i
i • -
-------
(time using a digital stop watch), the amount of product used (measure to the
nearest 0.5 ounce), productjdilution ratio, number of wipes used, and ease of
use. Also document if the sjtencil dissolved easily or slowly, an evaluation of
how much scrubbing was needed, if any emulsion was still present, and if amy
ink haze or stencil stain remained on the mesh. If an initial attempt to
remove all the stencil fails, record the screen condition and apply the product
again. i
I
5. Apply the haze remover product according to the instructions supplied by the
manufacturer. Record the application procedure, the time it takes to complete
the haze removal (time using a digital stop watch), the amount of product
used (measure to the nearest 0.5 ounce), product dilution ratio, number of
wipes used, and ease of use. Also report if any ink haze or stencil stain is
present on the mesh. If an initial attempt to remove the haze fails, document
the screen condition, and apply the product to the screen again.
6; Based on the testing method described above, SPTF will determine the
effectiveness of all of the products submitted. This will include evaluating the
manufacturer's application instructions for each product and ensuring that the
application technique specified for that product will enable the product to
work effectively. If the application technique specified for a particular
product is determined to limit the effectiveness of the product or in any other
way negatively affect performance, a second application technique will be
chosen and tested. Only products deemed effective by SPTF will be used
in the field demonstration; portion of the project.
C. Testing Parameters - Alternative Chemicals
For each ink type tested (solvent-based, UV-cured, and water-based), use the
following screen parameters: ;
Mesh Count per Inch/Thread Diameter:
39Q/34 LE for UV ink
260/40 LE for solvent- and water-based ink
Supplier/Manufacturer: Tetko/Swiss Silk of Switzerland
Brand Name of Fabric: PeCap LE (Low Elongation)
i ' " • - •
Mesh Opening: 26 microns !
Fabric Thickness: 60 microns
Twill or Plain Weave: Twill Weave
i
i
! 107
-------
Suggested Tension: 26 N/cm for UV ink
20 N/cm for solvent- and water-based ink
Frame Type: Aluminum
Frame Size: 18" x 20" Outside Dimensions
Tensioning System: Tetko SST Pneumatic Clamp System
Adhesive: KIWO Kiwobond 1000JHMT
! ' ' :
Tensioning Procedure: I
1. Bring screen directly up to tension using predetermined pressure settings on
pneumatic gauges.
2. Let screen set 5 minutes. |
3. Check tension, and retension if necessary.
4. Adhere with frame adhesive.
5. Check final tension and record.
Stencil Brand and Type: KIWO Poly Plus SRX dual cure direct emulsion
!•'••• - - '
Scoop Coater Brand and Edge: Tetko Pro-EM round edged coater 12" length
j • •
Coating Method: 2 coats on print side, 3 coats on squeegee side, wet on wet.
I , ,
Image Description: A 10" x 8" pattern of Vz" checkers and a ByChrome halftone
exposure image.
Exposure System Description: Olec 5KW Metal Halide lamp with 36" distance
and light integrator.!
Wipe Type: Molnlycke brand P-Tork made from rayon and pure cellulose.
• • . ].'••-•"' • • .' •"•
Tnk Types !
Solvent-based Ink: Naz-Dar 9700 Series All Purpose Ink 9724 Black
UV Ink: Nor-Cote CD 1019 Opaque Black
Water-based Ink: TW Graphics WB-5018 Black
108
-------
Testing Parameters - Sodium Bicarbonate Alternative Technology
During the sodium bicarbonate test, the following parameters were used:
Sodium Bicarbonate: j 75 micron particle size
Delivered at 1 - 1.5 pounds/minute
Sodium Bicarbonate delivered at 5 - 30 psi
Screen:
Inks:
Ink application:
j Water delivered at 200 - 250 psi
Polyester mesh mounted on wood frames
Dual-cure emulsion
13" x 23" outside diameter
| Same inks as were used for the alternative
! chemical systems testing
Each type of ink was applied to one screen, carded off,
and th|e screen was allowed to dry for 18 hours before
starting the cleaning test.
109
-------
APPENDIX H:
i , .
j
Participating Manufacturers
The participation of the following screen printing manufacturers was critical to the success
of the performance demonstration. These manufacturers can be contacted through the
information given below:
Amerchem
165 W. Mittel Drive
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Contact: J.P. Godinez
708-616-8600
Autotype Americas
2050 Hammond Drive
Schaumberg, IL 60173-3810
Contact: Neil Bolding
708-303-5900
Ciot International Services
48 Marlin Drive
Whippany, NJ 07981-1279
Contact: George Ciottone
201-503-1922
Franmar Chemical Associates
P.O. Box 483
Normal, IL 61761
Contact: Frank Sliney
309-452-7526
Hydro Engineering, Ihc;
865 West 2600 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Contact: Bob Roberts
801-247-8424
Image Technology, Inc.
1170 North Armando St.
Anaheim, CA 92806
Contact: Harry Emtiaz
714-632-5292
KIWO
P.O. Box 1009
Seabrook, TX 77586
Contact: Clark King
1-800-KIWO-USA
Nichols and Associates, Inc.
111575 Rupp Drive
Burnsvffle, MN 55337
Contact: Oliver Nichols
612-895-1766
Ruemelin Manufacturing
3860 N. Palmer St.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Contact: Charlie Ruemelin
414-962-6500
110
-------
APPENDIX!:
VOLUNTEER FACILITY PROFILES AND PERFORMANCE DETAILS
PRODUCT SYSTEM ALPHA
.( •
Facility Profiles
I
The operating conditions for each ifacility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Alpha for one month are described below. This information is
provided as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of Product System
Alpha at each of these three facilities. j
I
Profile of Facility 8 I '
Facility 8 prints labels, nameplates[ and graphic overlays, primarily on plastics, but
they also do some printing on paper and metals. Their typical run length is 100 sheets, and
approximately 75% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the 40 - 50 employees at this
facility, approximately 3 are involved inj screen reclamation. All printing is done with
solvent-based inks; both vinyl and epoxy kiks are used. All screens used in the Performance
Demonstrations were made of a monoester mesh that was treated with a roughening paste
and a degreaser when each screen was initially stretched. Mesh count during the
demonstration period ranged from 195 - 330 threads/inch and an indirect stencil was used
for all screens. The average screen size used at this facility is 24.5 inches x 31.75 niches
(778 in2) and 10 - 15 screens are reclaimeid daily.
]• . - . ... ... .
Currently, Facility 8 uses an ink remover that is a solvent blend of 50% toluene and
50% methyl ethyl ketone, as well as a proprietary blend of propylene glycol ethers (< 30%),
Stoddard Solvent (apetroleum distillate) (<:5%), and d-limonene (<20%)i Asanemulsion
remover, they use a formulation consisting primarily of sodium periodate. Haze remover
is only applied to approximately 25% of the screens and information on the chemical
formulation of their haze remover is not currently available. Standard application procedures
at this facility are comparable to the procedures recommended for the alternative productis.
Profile of Facility 13 ]
Facility 13 prints store displays, decals, and outdoor signs. Their products aire
printed on plastics, paper, and metal. A typical run length is 500 - 1000 sheets and
approximately 25 % of their orders are repeat orders. There are about 70 employees
-------
390 threads/inch. The screen size typicality used in this facility is 49 inches x 41 inches,
and approximately 20 screens are reclaimed daily.
Profile of Facility 14 |
Facility 14 prints three-dimensional panels, pressure-sensitive labels, and specialty
items for advertising. Primarily, they print on plastics and metals, but they also do some
printing on paper. A typical run is 100 - 300 sheets and approximately 85 % of their orders
are repeat orders. Of the approximately112 employees at this facility, 3 are involved in
screen reclamation activities. Several different types of ink are commonly used at Facility
14, including thermal setting, vinyls, ahd UV-cured, and small amounts of lacquers,
enamels, and epoxies. All screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were made of
a monofilament polyester and a direct photo stencil emulsion was applied. Mesh count during
the demonstration period ranged from 305 i- 390 threads/inch. The average screen size used
at this facility is 12 ft2 and approximately 112 screens are reclaimed daily.
I ,
For ink removal, Facility 14 uses either a product consisting of 99% tripropylene
glycol methyl ether, or a proprietary solvent blend sold by a manufacturer not participating
in the performance demonstration. MSDS information on the latter product states it contains
no hazardous substances, is non-flammable, has no SARA reportable chemicals, and meets
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements. Their emulsion
remover is a formulation consisting primarily of sodium periodate. For haze removal, they
use either an aqueous blend which {consists of potassium hydroxide (27%) and
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (11 %), or an aqueous blend that contains sodium hydroxide (5 %)
and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (17%). ijhe application procedures the facility uses when
applying their standard products are very similar to the methods used to apply the alternative
products, however, haze remover is only applied to approximately 6% of the screens when
using the standard product. [
Product System Aloha Performance Details
Performance Details from Facility 8
Over the four week demonstration
period, this facility reclaimed 48 screens with the
— - — — ~ — - - _-_--__. A f ^
Product System Alpha. The screen printing manager reclaimed the screens himself during
the demonstration period. He was willing jto experiment with different application techniques
to improve the performance of the alternative products.
The printer thought the ink remover performance was satisfactory, but results were
inconsistent and the product required extra scrubbing effort to achieve acceptable results.
He noted that the ink remover performante was unacceptable on epoxy inks, even with the
extra effort. One specific observation was that the ink remover did not stay wet on the
screen which made wiping more difficult. Performance improved, however, when he
sprayed the product both on the rag and Jon the screen. After using the ink remover, the
printer evaluated each screen and reported that the ink was removed effectively on 62% of
the screens. i
112
-------
Typically, this facility uses hot water to start the breakdown of their emulsion. When
following the manufacturer's application instructions for the Alpha emulsion remover, which
does not require hot water, the printer found the emulsion came off in "strings," instead of
dissolving. The stringy, solid mass clogged the drain. To solve this problem, the printer
rinsed the screen with hot water before applying the emulsion remover. This additional step
took an extra 3-5 minutes, but the emulsion remover performance improved.
The haze remover did not sufficiently remove the haze on approximately 20% of the
screens. The printer wiped these screens with lacquer thinner (which easily removed the
haze) before reusing the screen. The observer confirmed that this supplementary wipe down
was necessary and noted that the white rag| with lacquer thinner on it turned black as the dark
haze was removed from the screen. Overall, the printer felt the alternative haze remover
performance was not acceptable.
Data from the printer's product evaluation forms was analyzed to determine if there
were any correlations between variations' in the product performance and changes in the
demonstration conditions (e.g., ink type, e'mulsion type, screen condition). The printer was
asked to evaluate the screen after using each product (ink remover, emulsion remover, and
haze remover). In addition, the printer recorded the amount of ink remaining on the screen
at the start of reclamation. In reviewing this data, it was found that for screens where the
initial ink remaining on the screen was high (i.e., it was not carded off well), there was an
ink stain remaining on the screen after emulsion removal (for 100% of the screens in the
demonstration). When the initial ink remaining on the screen was recorded as "low", an ink
stain remained after emulsion removal for [only 33 % of the screens. This could indicate that
if the screen is effectively carded before ink removal (as the manufacturer recommends), the
product performance may improve significantly. Overall, 76% of the screens had an ink
stain or stencil stain after using the emulsion remover. After applying the haze remover,
20% of the screens could not be reused because of the remaining haze.
During the four week demonstration, this facility did not notice any change in screen
failure rate or any deterioration of the screen mesh. The printer had no problems with print
image quality while using Product System Alpha, however, he felt he avoided potential print
quality problems by cleaning the screens! again with his own ink remover before reusing
them. !
I
!
Performance Details from Facility 13
, Overall, this facility was not satisfied with the performance of System Alpha. The
alternative products required more time and effort than their standard products and were not
as effective.in cleaning the screens as their standard products. Because of the extra time
required, the facility could not reclaim screens fast enough to keep up with their need to
reuse the screens. The screen reclaimer also did not like the strong smells associated with
the alternative products. For these reasons, the printing manager made the decision to
discontinue participation in the demonstrations after two weeks. More experimenting with
application methods could have lead to improved performance, but this facility did not seem
willing to try. The facility contact also mentioned that the reclamation employee was not
-------
reliable and that he did not feel confident in the screen reclamation results that were
provided. In analyzing the limited data from this facility, the performance of the alternative
products did not seem to be affected Iby ink type, ink color, mesh type, or other
demonstration conditions. |
The ink remover did not perform as well as their usual product. It removed ink less
effectively than was expected and involved more applications and rinsing (which meant more
time) to get the ink out of the mesh. The only application changes attempted were to use
more product and effort. The added scrubbing was considered a very negative characteristic
of the ink remover. !
Even at full strength the emulsion remover required more scrubbing and time to
remove the emulsion from the screens than their usual product. The alternative emulsion
remover did remove the stencil, however] because of the extra time required, the facility
discontinued use of the emulsion remover after the first week of demonstrations.
The haze remover did not reduce stains in the mesh as effectively as the facility's
usual haze remover. Almost every time the haze remover was used, the facility had to
follow with their usual haze remover to get the screen clean enough for reuse. When using
their standard product system, this facility! needed to use a haze remover for only about 30
percent of their screens. Facility 13 did not experiment with application methods other than
extra scrubbing and they stopped using the haze remover after the first week of
demonstrations.
No changes were noted in the screens used with the alternative products. Longer-
term use of the alternative products may liave damaged the screens or reduced screen life
because of the excessive scrubbing that was needed with Product System Alpha.
Performance Details from Facility 14
Performance of System Alpha w,as average at Facility 14. The results are
complicated by the fact that three different' people were involved in the demonstrations and
the two original screen reclamation employees were terminated after about three weeks into
the demonstration period. The initial data quality seemed good, but a lot of information was
missing from the forms that were submitted from the last week(s) of employment of the
terminated employees. The new screen reclaimer may not have followed the same
procedures when using the alternative products.
The ink remover worked fairly well, but sometimes had to be reapplied for the
screens to be thoroughly cleaned. The prpcluct worked particularly well with vinyl inks.
The ink remover's performance was improved by applying the ink remover immediately after
a print run and letting it sit on the screen fjor up to a day before it was pressure rinsed off.
The manufacturer's directions do not give any recommendations of the soaking time for the
ink remover. !
The emulsion remover was reported
to have worked well at this facility and it worked
114
-------
faster than their usual product. In one case, however, the emulsion remover left a slight
green tint in the screens, but this was removed by their usual haze remover.
The initial screen reclaimers felt that the haze remover had average performance, but
the final reclaimer felt that it left more of ja haze in the mesh than she expected. This later
reclaimer only used the product on a few screens and may not have applied the ink remover
immediately after the press run which the original employees were doing to improve the
performance of the ink remover. This may| explain why the new employee thought that more
haze than usual was left on the screens. The alternative haze remover and the standard hzize
remover used at this facility are almost identical chemically. Also, the print quality was very
rarely documented by this facility, although it may be safe to assume that problems with
print quality would have been reported, ifi obvious.
j .
The analysis of the data from this ifacility did not show any correlation between the
performance of the alternative products and any variations in ink type, ink color, mesh type,
or other demonstration conditions. No side effects on the screens or changes in the screen
failure rates were noted during the demonstrations.
115
-------
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT BETA
Facility Profile
The operating conditions for the facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product Beta for one month are described below. This information is provided as a
basis of comparison to review the performance results of Product System Beta at the facility.
Profile for Facility 12 j
Facility 12 prints graphic overlays, labels, and flexible membrane switches on
plastics, paper, and metals. Their typical run length is one hour, and approximately 70%
of their orders are repeat orders. There are about 10 employees involved in screen printing
at this location, and approximately 4 are inyolved in screen reclamation. Solvent-based vinyl
and polyester inks used at this facility. Screens with mesh counts of 195 - 390 threads/inch
and capillary film emulsions were used during the demonstrations. The average screen size
at this facility is 9 ft2 and 10 - 15 screensj are reclaimed daily.
i •
This facility uses a solvent blend, ink remover containing 50% toluene and 50%
acetone. Their emulsion remover consists Iprimarily of sodium periodate. For haze removal,
they use a proprietary solvent blend which includes sodium hydroxide and cyclohexanone.
The method Facility 12 typically uses for ink removal is similar to the method recommended
for the alternative ink remover. i
116
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM CHI
Facility Profiles
The operating conditions for both facilities that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Chi for one month are described below. This information is provided
as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of Product System Chi at each
of the two facilities. I
r -
i ,. . »
Profile of Facility 3 i
Facility 3 prints decals and vacuum formed sheets on plastics and paper. A typical
run is 250 sheets, and 71 % of their ordejrs are repeat orders. Of the approximately 40
employees at this facility, 1 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation. All printing is done with
solvent-based inks. Screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were polyester or
monoester/polyester with a mesh count of 180 - 370 threads/inch. The facility used a dual
cure emulsion. The average screen size at this facility is 15 ft2 and approximately 15 screens
are reclaimed daily. j
I *"•"• - , ' •
As their standard ink remover, Fajcility 3 uses a proprietary solvent blend, which
consists of n-butyl acetate (81%) and toluene (19%). For emulsion removal, they use a
formulation consisting of 100% sodium periodate. They use two different haze removal
products at this facility. One product is a proprietary solvent blend which contains at least
sodium hydroxide and cyclohexanone. Their other haze removal product, sold by a
manufacturer who is not participating in the performance demonstration, contains no
carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives, according
to the MSDS. Application procedures for the alternative products were the same as the
facility's standard procedures, except in the case of the ink remover. In their standard
practice they rinse the ink off with a pressure wash, and when using the alternative method,
the ink is wiped off with a cloth. j
I
i "
Profile of FacUity 21 1
Facility 21 prints decals for glass and ceramics. Their typical run length is 1000
sheets and approximately 50% of their orders are repeat orders. There are approximately
15 -20 employees at this facility, and 1-3 people are responsible for screen reclamation.
During the Performance Demonstration, this facility used solvent-based inks, a capillary film
emulsion, and screens with mesh counts that ranged from 60 - 390 threads/inch. Their
average screen size is 3 feet x 3 feet and 20 - 25 screens are reclaimed daily.
I - " • • - .
The standard ink remover at Facility 21 is a proprietary product, sold by a
manufacturer not participating in the performance demonstration, that contains no
carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs orj PELs, and no petroleum derivatives, according
to the MSDS. Their emulsion remover contains primarily sodium periodate. Their standard
haze remover is a proprietary solvent I blend which includes sodium hydroxide and
cyclohexanone. The application procedure: recommended for the alternative products is very
similar to the application method the facility uses for their standard products. Typically,
117
-------
their standard haze remover is only used Jon 1 % of the screens reclaimed. The need for the
alternative haze remover was similar; it
reclaimed during demonstrations.
was required on one screen out of the 48 screens
Product System Chi Performance Details from Each Facility
Performance Details from Facility 3
Throughout the performance demonstration period, the facility contact was asked
about the performance of the components1 of Product System Chi. He was generally pleased
with the performance of the ink remover and emulsion remover, although the ink remover
took longer to solubilize the inks than thpir standard product in some cases, when used as
a haze remover, the ink remover usually! did not remove the ghost image from the screen.
Overall, the facility contact remarked that he did not think that System Chi would be a viable
long-term alternative reclaiming system for his plant.
The ink remover worked acceptably on all screens, although it was somewhat slower
to dissolve the inks than the facility's regular ink remover. The printer tried using the
product to clean the squeegee and flood bar on the press after printing runs, but found that
it was slow to break down the ink and lefjt an oily film. After several cycles of printing and
reclaiming with the demonstration screens, a noticeable ink haze began to build up in the
screens, indicating that the ink remover was not removing all the ink from the mesh. The
buildup was not enough to prevent successful printing of regular jobs with the screens, but
the facility contact felt that the performance of the screens on a transparent ink image or a
flood coat would be unacceptable. There were some variations in the time it took to remove
the ink, ranging from 2 to 12 minutes. However, the recorded data does not show any
correlation between the ink remover time! and any of the variable screen conditions, such as
ink color or number of impressions.
The emulsion remover worked well, with no notable variations in performance among
the screens used for the demonstration period. The facility contact did not think the product
was chemically different from what he hid been using previously.
This system did not include a haze remover; instead the manufacturer recommended
applying the ink remover again to remove any remaining haze. At Facility 3, the ink
remover did not satisfactorily remove-thje haze. Ghost images continued to build on the
screens throughout the demonstration period. The facility normally uses two haze remover
products. One haze remover is a milder chemical, which leaves a small amount of ink haze
in the screens. This product is used by [itself on a regular basis until ghost images in the
screen become unacceptable. The other haze remover, which is a stronger chemical, is then
used to de-haze the screen to a baseline clean state, after which the screen reclaimer returns
to the milder chemical for as many reclaimings as possible. The facility contact remarked
that the performance of the alternative haze remover is similar to their "milder" regular haze
remover, except that the ink haze built up faster using the alternative product.
i -.--.._. . - ••,...- •
I -
1 118
-------
Product System Chi did not appear to cause screen failure, or have any noticeable
permanent effects on the screens or frames. The three squirt bottles shipped with the
products started leaking around the triggers during the first week of the demonstration, and
had to be replaced. It is not known if this is an effect of the products or not.
j'.. - ' - .
Performance Details from Facility 21
This facility was generally pleased jwith the performance of System Chi. Currently,
the facility uses an automatic screen washer, which cleans the screens in a closed system that
recycles the solvent. This was a very organized facility and the quality of the data received
was probably quite high. They thoroughly documented the demonstrations and only one
screen reclaimer was involved in the demonstrations. The production manager was
responsible for monitoring the future print| quality on screens reclaimed with the alternative
products. He paid very careful attention to screen conditions and would have noticed any
deleterious effects of the alternative products. No changes in the screen mesh or print
quality were noted during the demonstrations.
I • • -• • .-- '• - • • -•- •;. ;•
The ink remover worked well, however it was not as efficient as their standard
product. The facility particularly liked the ink remover's performance with metallic inks.
When used on screens with cover (flux) coats or with other clear ink coats, the ink remover
did not work well, although the facility has| similar problems with their current ink remover.
Added scrubbing was needed to remove ink from very coarse (low mesh count) screens. Ink
color and number of impressions did not seem to affect ink remover performance.
The emulsion remover worked muj;h better ("excellent") than the product they had
been using. Although it worked very well on both emulsion types, the emulsion remover
required a little more effort to remove capillary film emulsion than direct emulsion.
For Product System Chi, a second {application of the ink remover was used in place
of a haze remover as needed. At this facility, a haze remover was needed on only one
Screen. On that screen, a ghost image remained in the mesh after using the ink remover one
tune. After reapplying the ink remover two more times, the image was lightened enough
to reuse the screen. Normally, this facility does not use a haze remover.
i . • •
I 119
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM DELTA
Facility Profiles
The operating conditions for eachi facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Delta for one month are described below. This information is
provided as a basis of comparison to revibw the performance results of alternative product
system at each of these two facilities.
Profile of Facility 10
Facility 10 prints store displays, ppmarily on paper, but they also print on plastics,
metal, ceramic, glass, and other materials-! Their typical run length is 200 - 500 impressions
and less than 5 % of their orders are repeat orders. Of the approximately 25 employees at
this facility, 1 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation activities. The screens used in the
Performance Demonstrations were twill mesh with mesh counts of 305 - 390 threads/inch
and a direct photo stencil was applied. The average screen size at this facility is 70 inches
x 100 inches and 5-10 screens are reclaimed daily.
I :
Facility 10 uses a proprietary blejid ink remover consisting of at least propylene
glycbl ethers and dimethyl adipate. For emulsion removal, they use a proprietary aqueous
mixture which contains periodate salt (< 10 %). Their haze remover is a proprietary aqueous
mixture which contains sodium hydroxide (< 15%) and is only required on 2 - 5% of the
screens reclaimed, The application method recommended by the alternative product system
manufacturer is the same as the procedure used for this facility's standard product system
with the exception of the ink remover. The alternative ink remover is washed off with a
pressure wash and the standard ink removed is wiped off with rags.
Profile of Facility 11 \
Facility 11 prints fleet graphics and pressure sensitive decals. Typically, they print
about 100 units per run and 50 % of their orders are repeat orders. There are approximately
35 employees at this facility, and 1-3 people are involved in screen reclamation activities.
During the Performance Demonstrations, this facility used UV-cured inks and a direct photo
stencil. Screens with a monofilament twill! weave and a mesh count of 390 threads/inch were
used. The average screen frame size us|ed in this facility is 68 inches x 88 niches and
approximately 5 screens are reclaimed peir day.
i. . .
Facility 11 uses a standard ink remover that is a proprietary product, sold by a
manufacturer not participating in this project. According to the MSDS, this product contains
no carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives.
Information on the emulsion remover used at Facility 11 was not available. Their haze
remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture jthat contains sodium hydroxide (< 15 %), but it is
used on only 1 - 3 % of the screens reclaimed. The application procedures for the alternative
product system are very similar to this facility's standard application methods.
I
Product System Delta Performance Details from Each Facility
I . ' •' ,
I 120
-------
Performance Details from Facility 10
System Delta had average success at this facility. The ink remover performance was
acceptable and the emulsion remover wojrked very well. A second application of the ink
remover as a haze remover did not remove the haze from the screens, therefore the facility
used their standard haze remover when'needed. After three weeks, the print manager
decided they did not want to continue their participation in the performance demonstrations
because their standard ink remover and haze remover worked better than the alternative
products. !
The ink remover's effectiveness was considered average at this facility. Prior to the
performance demonstrations, the facility (was using an ink remover that had a chemical
composition very similar to that of the ink remover supplied in Product System Delta. This
facility cards off excess ink and also wipes the screen with a rag so there is very little ink
left on the screen when the ink remover j product is applied. The reclaimers did not like
using this product because of its strong sinell and many of the employees felt that the ink
remover gave them headaches. Facility 10 did not use a pressure wash to remove the ink,
as recommended by the manufacturer. [Instead, they wiped off the dissolved ink with
reusable rags. I
The emulsion remover was very effective when diluted one part emulsion remover
to one part water (the manufacturer recommends diluting with 4-5 parts water). At this
dilution level, the reclaimers were very pleased with its performance and wanted to continue
using the product. This facility also liked the emulsion remover's lack of odor. When they
first started using this emulsion remover, jthey diluted it in 4 parts water, as recommended.
They found it did not work as well as their usual emulsion remover, so they tried diluting
it in two parts water, and found it worked [best when one part emulsion remover was diluted
in one part water. j
The facility infrequently documented the performance of the ink remover as a haze
remover when applied a second time. After only a few screens, they felt that their usual
haze remover worked much more effectively. On most of the screens, no haze remover was
needed, however, when it was required, Facility 10 used their standard haze remover alter
using the alternative ink remover and emulsion remover.
! ' •-
Facility 10 did not notice that the alternative products performed differently with
screen conditions. The data did not showjany correlations between screen conditions (e.g.,
ink color, ink drying time) and indicators of performance (e.g., time to clean, quantity of
product used). The printer felt that screens that sat around for days before reclamation were
more difficult to clean than screens cleaned immediately after the print run ended.
I •- •
No changes were noticed in screen wear or in screen failure rates. Print image
quality was good, however, since they we're using their own haze remover, it is difficult to
determine if there would have been any changes to the print image quality as a result of
using only the alternative product system.!
121
-------
Performance Details from Facility 11
Overall this facility felt that System Delta worked well. The printing manager felt that
if the alternative products are actually safer for his workers or for the environment, then he
would like to use this, product system at! his facility. The application procedures for the
alternative products closely resembled their usual reclamation procedures and this similarity
may have made Facility 11 more receptive to using System Delta.
The ink remover effectively remoyed the ink from the screens in all instances. A
UV-cured ink system was used with all screens in the demonstrations. The, printer
commented that the ink remover was "less effective" when the ink dried on the screen for
a long time. The data from this facility shows that screens where the reclaimer took 5
minutes or less to remove the ink had dried an average of 2.7 hours prior to ink removal.
Screens where the ink removal step took longer than 5 minutes had dried an average of 21.6
hours. By applying the ink remover immediately after the press run, as recommended by
the manufacturer, it appears time spent on ink removal could possibly be reduced. Facility
11 followed the manufacturers instructions and used a pressure wash to remove the ink from
the screen. Before the ink removal step, jmost of the ink was carded off the screen.
The emulsion remover worked
very
well for this facility at a variety of
concentrations. The initial reclamations were performed without diluting the emulsion
remover and performance was very good, j After trying several different dilution ratios, they
found a mix of one part product to three parts water worked very well at this facility. After
applying the ink remover and emulsion reinover, the screens were clean enough that a haze
removing step was unnecessary. Even without a haze remover step during the reclamation
process, the print quality was excellent. When using their usual products, this facility
attempts to minimize their use of haze remover; they only uses haze remover to clean a
screen when there is a haze that has built up over time or when much adhesive remains in
the screen. j
' j" ' : " ... ', . :
The same screen reclaimer performed all of the demonstrations and evaluated the
printing performance of the reclaimed screens. However, the reclaimer was moved to the
position of printer during the demonstrations period. Undoubtedly, this change reduced the
number of screens that were reclaimed wijth the alternative product and the forms were also
lacking in details. Since he was pleased with the alternative product performance, he did not
take the time to record many specific details. Overall the use of System Delta did not
produce any deleterious effects of the screen mesh or subsequent print image quality. The
printing supervisor noted that the alternative products may be reducing their screen failure
rate. • • . I
122
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM EPSILON j
i
I . . .. .
Facility Profiles j
i .
The operating conditions for each [facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Epsilon for one mjonth are described below. This information is
provided as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product
system at each of these two facilities.
Profile of Facility 20 |
Facility 20 prints banners and point-of-purchase displays on paper, plastic, metals,
ceramics, and glass. Their typical run is 20 parts and about 20% of their orders are repeat
orders. Of the approximately 10 employees at this facility, 1 - 3 are involved in screen
reclamation activities. The facility uses a variety of solvent-based inks including vinyl,
enamel, and a multipurpose ink. They use a dual cure emulsion. Screens used in the
Performance Demonstrations were polyester (untreated) with a mesh count of 83 -280
threads/inch. The average screen size at this facility is 4 feet x 5 feet and approximately 5 -
10 screens are reclaimed daily. ;
The standard ink remover product ;it Facility 20 is an acetone blend. For emulsion
removal, they use a proprietary aqueous imixture which includes periodate salt (<10%).
Their standard haze remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture with sodium hydroxide
(< 15%). There are some differences between the application method for the alternative
product system and that of their standard system. The alternative ink remover is rubbed into
the screen with rags and then pressure washed. For the standard product, the ink is wiped
off with rags and there is no wash. When using the alternative haze remover, the facility
lets the product set on the screen for ones or two minutes, however, with the alternative
product, the wait time is 10 - 30 minutes. These differences in application procedure did
not seem to affect the opinions of the printers evaluating the products.
Profile of Facility 24 j
The majority of the products printed by Facility 24 are pressure sensitive mylar labels
and polycarbonate Lexan face plates. Run lengths are typically 500 - 1000 impressions, and
approximately 50% of their business is for repeat orders. There are 15 - 20 employees
involved in production operations at this facility and 2 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation
operations. The facility uses both solvent-based inks and UV inks; sometimes on the same
screen. They use a direct photo stencil andi a monofilament (untreated) polyester mesh. AH
screens used in the Performance Demonstrations had a mesh count of 355 threads/inch. Tide
average screen size at this facility is 36" x|36" and 3 - 5 screens are reclaimed each week.
Facility 24 uses a proprietary solvent blend ink remover consisting primarily of
cyclohexanone, diacetone alcohol and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. Their emulsion
remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture'with at least sodium periodate. Their standard
haze remover is an aqueous blend consisting of sodium hydroxide (5%) and
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (< 15%). Application procedures for the alternative products were
i .
i 123 ' " •" ...-..-
-------
very similar to the methods of application^ for this facility's standard products.
Product System Eosilon Performance Details from Each Facility
Performance Details from Facility 20
Users of the reclaiming products jwere asked to evaluate the performance of the
components of System F^silon relative to the facility's regular system. The screen reclaimer
thought that the products were generally better than their previously used ones, llie
operations manager, however, felt that the ink remover did not perform quite as well in
cutting some inks as their previously used products. No evaluation sheets were received
from Facility 20, although the facility repojrted that they sent them. Unfortunately, they did
not make copies of the sheets before they were mailed. Therefore, all performance
information from Facility 20 was received [through the observer's on-site documentation and
through weekly telephone conversations with the facility. The observer interviewed both the
reclamation employee and the operations manager, who was also one of the printers who
used the ink remover. j
The ink remover worked acceptably! in the facility, although some of the printers who
used it complained that it acted slowly. Performance was not as good on catalyzed inks as
on other solvent-based inks. The catalyzed inks also require more effort to remove with the
facility's regular ink remover, but the alternative product did not perform as well as the
regular product in this case. The alternative product did eventually remove all the ink from
the screens. The operations manager, who also used the product, commented that it was
, moie of an respiratory irritant than their previously used product; he said that the alternative
product smelled bad and made him dizzy.
i . -
The emulsion remover worked well at this facility. One screen, with an 83 mesh
screen that had been used with an aggressive ink system, required at least two applications
of emulsion remover to clean. Two applications of emulsion remover are also required when
using the facility's standard emulsion rempver with this type of screen. The reclaimer felt
that either the coarse mesh or the ink system could have made the screen more difficult to
clean.
I
Haze remover performance was acceptable. Again, when reclaiming screens with a
mesh count of 83 threads per inch, the haze remover also had to be applied 2 or 3 times.
i • . • •
Overall, the use of Product System; Epsilon had no deleterious effects on the screen
mesh or on the subsequent print quality image and the printer did not notice any change in
screen failure rate over the time period that the alternative products were in use.
Performance Details from Facility 24
This facility felt the ink remover and the emulsion remover worked better than their
standard system, and the haze remover performed as well as their own product. Screen
printing is a relatively small part of the operations at this facility, and although they used
Product System F^silon on all the screens ^hey reclaimed, the total number of screens over
- i -.•• -. - • - .'
i 124
-------
four weeks was 14. I
i • • ' .
The ink remover consistently removed the both the solvent-based and the UV-cured
inks. Although the product performance was good for both ink types, this printer found the
UV inks easier to clean than the solvent-based inks. In addition, the facility found the
quantity of alternative ink remover used per screen was significantly less than the quantity
used of standard product. |
;•' I - •:
The printer felt the emulsion remoyer was as effective as their standard product, and
it dissolved the stencil quickly. Product System Epsilon haze remoyer performance was
evaluated as the same as the facility's standard haze remover. Although the data from this
facility indicates that there were several jcases where the screen could not be reused for
reverse printing or for use with transparent inks, the printer felt that these restrictions were
not entirely due to the alternative products! Some of the remaining ink stains may have been
on the screen prior to the start of the alternative products demonstrations.
i-
During the four weeks the products were used in this facility, no change in the screen
failure, mesh deterioration, or print quality were noted. The observer felt the facility
evaluated the alternative product's performance objectively and conscientiously. At the
conclusion of the demonstrations, the prinier mentioned that he was interested in continuing
to use the alternative ink remover and emulsion remover.
125
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM GAMMA
Facility Profiles
Profile of Facility 16
Facility 16 prints fleet vehicle markings on vinyl film. Their typical run length is
200 sheets, and approximately 60% of their orders are repeat orders. There are over 50
employees at this location, and 7 - 10 are involved in ink removal and 1 - 3 are involved in
screen reclamation. For the performance demonstrations, all inks used were solvent-based
on polyester or monoflex screens with capillary film emulsions. Screens mesh counts of 200
- 390 threads/inch were used for the demonstrations. Average screen size at this facility is
12 ft2 and approximately 20 screens are reclaimed daily.
The standard ink remover at this facility contains at least tripropylene glycol methyl
ether. For emulsion removal, they use a proprietary aqueous mixture with at least sodium
periodate. This facility uses two different haze removers: a paste which contains 25%
sodium hydroxide, and a liquid which contains cyclohexanone (25 %), butyl cellosolve acetate
(25%), benzyl alcohol (25%), and diacetone alcohol (20%). The application methods for
the standard ink remover and haze remover were the same as the procedures for the
alternative products. The alternative hazej remover, however, required a waiting time one
hour longer than the standard product. This change in procedure did not seem to affect the
results. . . I -
i
|
Profile of Facility 25 i
Facility 25 prints point-of-purchase displays and overlays for appliances and
automotive applications. Print runs at this jfacility average 16 hours and approximately 80%
of their orders are repeat orders. During the Performance Demonstration, this facility used
solvent-based inks and a direct photo stencil on polyester screens with mesh counts of 175 -
420 threads per inch. The most common screen sizes at Facility 25 are 42 inches x 42
inches and 42 inches x 50 inches. Approximately 25 screens are reclaimed daily.
1 '
This facility's standard ink remover is a solvent blend which includes the following
chemicals: cyclohexanone (<60%), j xylenes (<5%), ethyltoluene (<15%),
trimethylbenzenes (<35%), C-10 aromatics (<5%), and cumene (<5%). They also use
another solvent blend which contains methyjl ethyl ketone (< 35 %), toluene (< 55 %), n-butyl
acetate (<20%), and heptane (<15%). Their emulsion remover is a proprietary aqueous
mixture with at least periodate salt (<10%). For haze removal, this facility uses a
proprietary aqueous mixture with at least sodium hydroxide ( < 15 %). Use of the alternative
products required some changes from the application procedures typically used by this
facility. When using the alternative ink remover, the screen is rinsed to remove the ink,
whereas the standard ink remover is wipjed off the screen. The standard haze remover
requires a one minute wait, and the alternative product required at least a one hour wait, and
up to 24 hours. This additional waiting time may have inconvenienced the operators and
influenced their opinions of the product performance.
126
-------
Product System Gamma Performance Details from Each Facility
Performance Details from Facility 16
Product System Gamma ink remover and haze remover did not work well and Facility
16 decided not to use these products during the demonstration period. The emulsion
remover seemed to work very well; it was j evaluated for the entire four-week demonstration
period. During the demonstrations, there did not appear to be any change in the screen
failure rate, or any noticeable effects on the screen mesh or frames.
I
The ink remover was only used to clean four screens. The printer sprayed the
product on and let it sit for 30 second befpre wiping. In all cases it took a lot of effort to
clean the screens. The ink remover left an oily film and an ink residue hi the mesh. The
facility decided to discontinue using the alternative ink remover based on these results.
The emulsion remover worked well j with no notable variations in performance among
the screens used during the demonstration period. Although the product instructions require
waiting 1-2 minutes after applying the [product before pressure washing, the reclaimer
found that the emulsion began to fall off thje screen within 30 - 45 seconds after application.
Screens were therefore pressure washed sooner than specified, with no noticeable effect on
product performance. Facility 16 uses J screens encompassing a large range of sizes,
including some very large screens used foi producing fleet markings for semi-trailers. The
amount of emulsion remover used to clean the screens varied accordingly, although the
results were consistent. !
At this facility, the haze remover did not remove ghost images from the screens.
After initial printing using the prescribed procedure, the screen reclaimer left the haze
remover on a screen for 48 hours in an attempt to remove the ghost image, with no success.
The facility had to use their regular haze rejmover on the screens in order to be able to reuse
them in production. Use of the alternative haze remover was discontinued and the product
was not included in the performance demonstration. For both the haze remover and the ink
remover, an insufficient number of screens! were reclaimed with these products to determine
any correlations between demonstration conditions (e.g., number of impressions, ink color)
and the product performance. j
i
i • ' ' •
At Facility 16, one employee applied, the ink remover, and a second reclaimed the
screens and evaluated the printing quality on subsequent runs. Neither of these employees
had direct contact with the observer during the performance demonstration. Three different
people served as the facility contact during the course of the study. The confusion of so
many different contacts probably prevented the performance demonstration from being
managed as closely as it was in other facilities.
Performance Details from Facility 25
Although all three components of System Gamma were used during part of the
performance demonstrations, the ink remo|ver and haze remover did not work well enough
to be used for the complete four week period. The emulsion remover worked well and was
127
-------
used for the entire demonstration period, i During the demonstrations, the printer did riot
notice any changes in the screen failure rate or any detrimental effects on the screen mesh,
or frame. ;
I ,;..,- . - ...
The ink remover did not work well at Facility 25. It should be noted that the
standard ink remover used at this facility 'is chemically very different from the alternative
ink remover supplied as part of Product System Gamma. Adverse chemical interactions may
have occurred on some of the older screens due to the differences in the chemicals, and may
have affected all phases of the alternative product performance. The employee who used the
alternative ink remover tried several different procedures in order to improve the
performance such as using presoaked ragsj to get more ink remover on the screen, waiting
3-5 minutes after application before wiping the ink, and laying rags soaked in ink remover
over the screen as soon as it came off the press. Although these procedures helped remove
the ink from the stencil surface, there was still a large amount of ink left in the screen;
enough to completely block the mesh in so|me cases. The residual ink was not removed by
the emulsion and haze removal steps. The facility used the alternative ink remover for a
week and a half before they had to stop because of the poor performance. None of the
screens cleaned with this alternative product worked well in production, so they all had to
be reprocessed with the facility's regular (products before acceptable printing quality was
achieved. The facility used several different solvent ink systems and, in reviewing the data
from the printer's observations, the ink system and the length of the ink drying time seemed
to be the most influential variable in determining the level of performance of the alternative
products. However, the ink remover performance was not acceptable for any of the ink
systems used.
The emulsion remover performed consistently well on all screens and stencils. The
reclaimer found that the product acted faster on the stencil if the screen was wetted before
applying the emulsion remover. j .
i
The haze remover did not work well. The haze remover was allowed to react on the
screens as long as 24 hours, without successfully removing the ink haze. The reclaimer
continued to use the haze remover after use of the ink remover was suspended, to see if it
would perform better if the haze was less severe. She found that the haze remoyer worked
better if the screens were dried before the product was applied. Even so, too much ink haze
was left in the screens to be able to successfully reuse them. Ink residue left in the mesh
caused ghost images in subsequent jobs, and eventually solubilized in similar ink systems,
which caused the inks to become discolored during the printing runs. Facility 25, therefore,
discontinued the use of the alternative haze removersafter the second week of demonstrations.
j "•-.'..
At Facility 25, printing quality judgements were made by the printer, along with the
other employees involved in the study. Thje personnel involved seemed to work hard to try
to get acceptable results from the products!.
128
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM MU
Facility Profiles
j
The operating conditions for each j facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Mu for one month are described below. This information is provided
as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product system at
each of these two facilities.
Profile of Facility 17 - !
Facility 17 prints decals on paper, plastics, metals, ceramics, and glass. Their typical
run length is 400 impressions, and approximately 5% of their orders are repeat orders
There are about 5 employees at this locatibn, and 1 - 3 are involved in screen reclamation.
Both solvent-based and UV-cured ink systems are used at this facility; primarily UV inks
were used during the performance demonstrations. Screens with mesh counts of 280 - 390
threads/inch and direct photo stencils werelused for the demonstrations. The average screen
size at this facility is 16 ft2 and approximately 25 screens are reclaimed daily.
j
The standard ink remover used at Facility 17 is a proprietary blend consisting of at
least propylene glycol ethers (<50%). l^heir emulsion remover is a proprietary aqueous
mixture which contains periodate salt (< 10%). For haze removal, they use a proprietary
aqueous mixture with sodium hydroxide (< 15 %). This facility did not have to modify their
application procedures significantly when! switching from their standard products to the
alternative product system. ' . ;
j - • •
Profile of Facility 22 j '
Facility 22 prints back-lit automotive graphic overlays on plastics. Typically, they
print about 500 sheets per run and approximately 90% of their orders are repeat orders.
There are approximately 40 employees at this facility, and two people are involved in screen
reclamation. During the Performance Demonstration, this facility used solvent-based inks
and a direct photo stencil. Polyester screens with mesh counts of 230 - 305 threads per inch
were used. The average screen size in this facility is 40 inches x 40 inches and
approximately 12 screens are reclaimed daily.
L , , ' •: , :
For ink removal, Facility 22 uses ja custom solvent blend which consists of ethyl
acetate <20«'- 27%), methyl ethyl ketonb (20%), and xylene (20%). As an emulsion
remover, they use a proprietary aqueous mixture with at least sodium periodate. Their
standard haze remover is a proprietary blenjd which consists primarily of tripropylene glycol
methyl ether. To use the alternative product system, this facility did not have to change their
standard procedures for application of the ink remover or the emulsion remover. The
alternative haze remover, however, did require a waiting time of at least one hour (and up
to 24 hours), whereas their standard haze re|mover did not have a wait time. This additional
time may have influenced the printer's opinion of the product performance.
Product System Mu Performance Details from Each Facility
!
il29
-------
Performance Details from Facility 17
Facility 17 thought that Product Syjstem Mu cleaned the screens well and the screen
reclaimer noted that the fumes associated jwith the alternative products were not as bad as
those produced by the facility's usual products.
The ink remover performed well. Compared to their standard product, the reclaimer
noted that when using the alternative product he did not have to scrub the screens as much
and did not have to use as much product tjo get the screens clean. The printer commented
that it was more difficult to remove all of jthe ink from the screen when the previous print
run was a long one. However, the data,; although limited, do not show a change in the
scrubbing tune required corresponding to a change in the length of the previous run. Black
UV inks were not removed as effectively as other UV ink colors.
i
The emulsion remover performancej was very good on all screens. The haze remover
worked well in most cases, except when the haze was unusually dark. This facility normally
uses two haze removers: one is a weaker chemical that is used more frequently and the
other, stronger chemical, is only used fori stubborn stains. The Product System Mu haze
remover worked better than the weaker of; their two usual haze removal products, but mot
as well as the stronger chemical. On the one screen they reclaimed that had solvent-based
ink on it, the alternative haze remover did not remove the haze and the printer had to use
their stronger haze remover to clean the screen. All other screens reclaimed had been used
with UV ink, and on these screens, thej facility felt that the alternative haze remover
performed as well as and more quickly than the weaker of their two haze removers.
i
Using the alternative products did not substantially change the screen cleaning routine
at this facility. The printer did not notice any changes in the screen condition during the time
the alternative products were in use. If less scrubbing is associated with the use of the
alternative products, then screen abrasion ahd possibly the screen failure rate could decrease
with continued use of the alternative products.
| • •
Profile of Facility 22 j
This facility found the performance of Product System Mu ink remover and haze
remover was not acceptable. The printer 'thought the emulsion remover performance was
very good. |
!
. 'I -
The ink remover was applied to the Iscreens immediately after completion of the press
runs. Cleaning the screens still took a high level of effort and a long time to accomplish.
All screens took at least 20 minutes to clean, and two screens took 60 minutes. Screen
cleaning required 10 - 16 ounces of product; because of the large quantity required, the
facility ran out of ink remover after cleaning the twentieth screen. Even with this extra
effort, and extra product, an ink residue remained on the screens. The ink remover was
especially ineffective on ink which built up partially dried on the edge of the screen during
long runs. Overall, the facility contact commented that the product did not seem to cut the
ink at all. It should be noted that the standard ink remover used by this facility contains
strong hydrocarbon solvents and is cheinically very different from the alternative iiik
I 130
-------
remover. These chemical differences may have led to an adverse chemical interaction.
The emulsion remover worked well, with no notable variations in performance among
the screens used. It required a low level ojf effort, and consistently removed all the emulsion
from the screens. The performance of jthe haze remover proved to be unacceptable at
Facility 22. Ghost images were not removed from the screens and the facility was not able
to reuse the screens until they were treated with their standard haze remover. For this
reason, use of the alternative haze remover was suspended during the first week of the
demonstration.
i • •
At Facility 22 the facility contaqt, who was the product development manager,
removed the ink, reclaimed the screens and evaluated the printing quality on subsequent
runs. Although these were not tasks he usually performs, it should have ensured consistency
of judgement on the product performance! evaluations. Product System Mu did not appear
to cause screen failure, or have any noticeable effects on the screens or frames.
131
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AE I
I
Facility Profiles
1
The operating conditions for each facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Omicron-AE for one month are described below. This information
is provided as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product
system at each of these two facilities. !
Profile of Facility 2 j
Facility 2 prints signs, banners, and store displays on plastics and paper. A typical
run is 150 pieces and approximately 40% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the
approximately 12 employees at this facility, 5 are involved in screen reclamation. All
printing is done with solvent-based inks and the screens used in the Performance
Demonstrations all had a mesh count of 230 threads/inch with a direct photo stencil. The
typical screen size at this facility is 50 ft2 knd about 6 screens are reclaimed daily.
Facility 2 uses a proprietary ink remover that includes at least toluene (31 %), xylene
(24%), methyl isobutyl ketone (19%), etnylbenzene (6%) and diacetone alcohol. Their
standard emulsion remover contains at least sodium periodate. For haze removal, they use
a proprietary solvent blend that contains either at least dichloromethane (90%) and
isopropanol (1 %), or a blend that includes sodium hydroxide and cyclohexanone. Typically,
the haze remover is only used once a week at this facility. The application procedures for
the alternative products were significantly; different from the facility's standard methods,
including use of the alternative haze remover on every screen instead of once a week. These
changes may have inconvenienced the operators and influenced their opinions of product
performance.
Profile of Facility 19
Facility 19 prints graphic overlays, front panels, and membrane switches. They print
on plastics, metals, and paper. Their jobs usually run for 5 - 1500 impressions and
approximately 70% of their orders are repjsat orders. This facility uses solvent-based inks
and a direct photo stencil. The alternative products were used on screens with mesh counts
ranging from 156 - 390 threads/inch. Typical screen size in this facility is 30 inches x 33
inches, and approximately 60-80 screens'are reclaimed daily.
I
At Facility 19, their press-side ink remover is a proprietary solvent blend consisting
of at least 20% propylene glycol ethers,land petroleum hydrocarbons (<10%). Their
standard haze remover is a proprietary solvent blend which contains sodium hydroxide
(< 15%). This facility uses the haze remover for ink, emulsion, and haze removal. The
alternative product system is applied as Jan ink remover, emulsion remover, and haze
lemover separately. This change in the application procedure may have taken more time and
inconvenienced the screen reclaimers, possibly influencing their opinion of the product
system performance. :
i • • •
1132
-------
I
Product System Omicron-AE Performance Details from Each Facility
i :
Performance Details from Facility 2
Except for the emulsion remover, Product System Omicron-AE performed poorly at
this facility. Unfortunately, this facility became very busy during the demonstration period.
The excessive workload reduced the ambunt of time available for using the alternative
products and for experimenting with the application procedures. A total of 30 screens were
reclaimed with Product System Omicron-AE over a 4 week period, but the Omicron-AE ink
remover and haze remover were only used on 7 of the screens, due to poor performance.
The Omicron-AE emulsion remover was used on 26 screens and worked very well.
The ink remover did not work well at this facility, which used solvent-based ink
during the demonstrations. The screen reclaimer scrubbed one screen for 40 minutes trying
to get the ink out of the mesh, whereas no scrubbing is needed with their usual ink remover.
The alternative ink remover was chemically very different than this facility's standard
product and chemical interactions could have occurred. Their usual ink removing method
involved spraying solvent onto a screen in a small, closed room. This was a particularly
unpleasant room in that there was a high concentration of solvents in the air, and there v/as
also a lot of build-up of ink solids on the |fioor and walls. No respirators were seen when
the observer was on-site, although the facility reported that respirators are usually worn in
the "solvent room." Use of the alternative ink remover did not require the reclaimer to be
in the ink reclamation room. i
I
Facility 2 liked the performance of the emulsion remover very much and they thought
it performed better than their usual product, even when diluted at one part emulsion remover
to two parts water. The manufacturers application procedure did not instruct the printer to
dilute the emulsion remover. When there was a thick ink residue left in the screen, the
emulsion was more difficult to remove, j
i -
i - •
The haze remover did not reduce the haze in the screen mesh at all. The standard
haze remover at this facility contains some very strong chemicals such as dichlorometbane
and has a very different chemical composition from the alternative haze remover. These
differences could result in adverse chemical interactions on the screen, to improve
performance, this facility used the alternative haze remover concurrently with Comet cleanser
to remove the haze. Comet is typically used at this facility as a degreaser.
No changes in screen failure rate were noted during the demonstrations, but it could
be speculated that a reduced screen failure rate would result from longer term use of the
alternative products at this facility because of the abrasiveness of their usual products (such
as Comet). Unfortunately, the lower abrasiveness of the alternative products may be offset
by the amount of scrubbing required to get the screens clean. The reclaimer noted that his
scrubbing was producing visible wear in the screen mesh.
i
Performance Details from Facility 19
This facility did not continue using System Omicron-AE after the initial demonstration
! ' • .. .
133
-------
. , ,. . , .- ,
during the observer's visit. The alternative products did not clean the screens to a level at
all acceptable to this facility and they jvere not willing to experiment with different
application procedures that may have unproved performance. Also, the alternative products
seemed to require more time and effort than the facility's usual procedures.
This facility has one screen reclaimer per shift and neither speak English. Forms
were going to be translated into Spanish and the printing manager was present for much of
the demonstrations and served as an interpreter. This facility tends to wash about 24 screens
at a time in groups of eight. Using the alternative products severely interrupted the
reclamation process established at this facility. This facility reclaims about 60 to 80 screens
per shift. Currently, they only use one product for ink removal, emulsion removal, and haze
removal. It is a very effective product, but the observer noticed it is also corrosive and
emits strong vapors. Other facilities that use this product try to limit its use. This facility
uses no other reclamation products and expects all screens to be completely without haze
when reclamation is finished. Other facilities have less stringent haze removal requirements
or expectations. The alternative product performance would probably have been considered
acceptable at many other facilities. Also tiote that there may have been adverse chemical
interactions between this facility's standard haze remover and the alternative product,
because the two haze removers are chemically very different.
' i"-';''
During the observer's visit the alternative products were used with different ink
systems and several application techniques jwere evaluated. The type of ink did not seem to
affect the alternative product performance levels. No changes in the rate of screen wear or
failure were noted during the product demonstration. It is likely that the alternative products
would be less corrosive than their standard product in the long term.
The ink remover did not work effectively enough for this facility. Average ink
removal was observed, but the ink remover often had to be applied and scrubbed into the
screen multiple times. Ink often remained in the screen at the edges of the print image and
stencil. This level of removal did not compare to the results this facility has using their
standard product as an ink remover, where usually no scrubbing is needed.
The emulsion remover often did not remove all of the emulsion from the screen. The
emulsion remover required more scrubbing than with their standard product. Often, multiple
applications were required to remove all of the emulsion. Still, emulsion tended to remain
hi the screen around the edges of the stencil.
i ', '...-• •. .
The haze remover worked fairly well leaving only a light haze. This haze, which
would have been acceptable at many of the other facilities participating in the project, was"
unacceptable for this facility. Even when the haze remover was allowed to stay on the
screen for longer than the directions suggested, no appreciable improvement in performance
was noted. When Facility 19 uses their usual haze remover, the haze disappears from the
screen.
134
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM OMICRON-AF i
| . :
Facility Profiles j
I ; . : ."•".'"•'
I
The operating conditions for each j facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Omicron-AF for one month are described below. This information
is provided as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product
system at each of these two facilities. j
Profile of Facility 4 j
Facility 4 prints decals on plastijc sheets. A typical run is 3,000 sheets, and
approximately 50% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the 30 - 40 employees at this
facility, approximately 4 are involved in screen reclamation. All printing is done with UV-
cured inks. All screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were polyester (calendared)
with a typical mesh count of 390 threads/inch with a direct photo stencil. The average
screen size at this facility is 35 inches x 38 inches and approximately 6 screens are reclaimed
daily. j
j .....
As their standard screen reclamation products, Facility 4 uses two proprietary
products for ink removal, and also uses proprietary products for emulsion and haze removal.
These products are sold by a manufacturer not participating in the performance
demonstration. The MSDSs for all of thes;e products state that they contain no carcinogens,
no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum derivatives. The application procedure
for the alternative ink remover recommended that the ink be wiped off the screen. This
facility's standard ink removal practice is !to rinse the screen. The screen reclaimers were
trained on this change in application method, but the extra physical effort required may have
influenced their opinions of the product performance. The emulsion and haze remover
application techniques are very similar for the alternative and standard products.
Profile of FaciUty 18 j
Facility 18 prints graphic overlays) for the electronics industry and nameplates and
panels. All of their printing is done on plastics. Their typical run length is 16 hours and
approximately 80% of their orders are repejat orders. There are approximately 40 employees
at this facility, three of which are involved in screen reclamation activities. During the
Performance Demonstration, this facility used solvent-based inks and they used both a direct
photo stencil and a capillary film stencil. High tension monofilament polyester mesh
(untreated) screens with mesh counts ranging from 110 - 460 threads/inch were used.
Typical screen sizes hi this facility are lj,596 in2 or 952 in2, and approximately 10 - 15
screens are reclaimed daily. j
I
As their standard ink remover, Facility 18 uses a proprietary solvent blend that
contains at least pentanedioic acid and dimethyl ester (<20%). Their standard emulsion
remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture with at least sodium periodate. For haze removal,
this facility uses a proprietary aqueous mixture that contains sodium hydroxide (<15%).
Facility 18 typically rinses the ink remoter from the screen, but the alternative product
135
-------
required the screen reclaimer to wipe th£ ink off the screen. The extra physical effort
required may have influenced the screen Reclaimers opinions of the product performance.
The emulsion and haze remover application techniques are similar for the alternative and
standard products. !
• \
i
Product System Omicron-AF Performance Details from Each Facility
i
Performance Details from Facility 4
After using Product System Omicron-AF for two weeks, Facility 4 decided they did
not want to continue participation in the, performance demonstrations. When using the
screens reclaimed with Omicron-AF in subsequent print jobs, the printer noticed a ghost
image. He cleaned the screens again usingl his own product to remove the haze and was then
able to reuse the screens. Faced with a tight production schedule, the printer was unable to
continue using Product System OmicronjAF since additional time would be required to
reclean the screens with his standard product.
I
.-. I • -
After using the ink remover, the printer evaluated the screen and reported that the ink
was removed effectively on 80% of the screens. However, after using the emulsion
remover, the printer noted that on every screen an ink residue remained in the stencil area.
He felt that this ink residue normally would not have been a problem, because his haze
remover could remove it. The alternative! haze remover could not.
' i • ' •
The printer was pleased with the performance of the emulsion remover. He reported
that it removed the stencil completely and; easily.
The performance of the haze remover was unacceptable at this facility. When
following the manufacturers application instructions, the haze remover reduced the residue,
but did not remove it or significantly lighten the ink stain on the mesh, even after vigorous
scrubbing and a long high pressure wate,r wash. A ghost image was clearly visible on
subsequent print jobs which required the printer to clean the screen again with his standard
haze remover. |
!
To improve the product performance, the printer varied several conditions: he
increased the soaking time on the screen) for the ink remover and the haze remover, he
increased the quantity of ink remover and {haze remover, he sprayed the haze remover on a
scrubber pad instead of directly onto the screen, and he tried drying the screen before using
the haze remover. These techniques did not improve the performance of the product system.
During the two weeks of demonstrations, product performance was quite consistent as were
the demonstration conditions (e.g., ink type, emulsion type, screen condition). The printer
did not think further use of the product wiould provide any different data.
, i
i
Overall, the printer did not notice' any change in screen failure rate over the time
period that the alternative products were in use, however, he did need to clean each screen
a second time with his own haze remover i!n order to be able to reuse it. The printer thought
this haze would build up on the screen and would eventually prevent the emulsion from
I 136
-------
adhering to the screen. j
, _.
Performance Details from Facility 18
Facility 18 used Product System |Omicron-AF for four weeks. The press area
supervisor was asked to comment on the performance of the system several times during the
performance demonstration period. He felt that, in general, the ink remover and emulsion
remover products worked as well as the products they were previously using. The haze
remover, however, did not give acceptable; results, and they stopped using it during the first
week of the demonstrations. j
J • : .. •'• - -. '
The ink remover worked well in most cases. Two of their solvent based inks which
were difficult to clean with their regulajr products also required more effort with the
alternative products. The facility's standard procedure for these inks is to apply haze
remover twice after reclaiming. Ink residue left by the alternative chemicals required this
practice to be continued during the performance demonstration.
i
The emulsion remover performed well on all screens and stencils. The reclaimer
noted.that the stencil dissolved easily with this product. The haze remover did not work
well. After reclaiming several screens, it was determined that the screens could not be
reused until the facility's regular haze remover was applied to them. Facility 18 therefore
discontinued the use of the alternative haze remover.
i " '.
I . .
Screen size at this facility was relatively uniform, and careful controls were placed
on screen condition and tension. Retensionable frames were used exclusively. The screens
were brought to the reclaiming area with most of the ink removed from them already, having
been carded off at the press. Facility 18 had tried other products which were advertised as
"safer", and they had one bad experience w,here one of the products damaged their plumbing
system. The same person reclaimed the screens and evaluated the print image quality. Tins
employee was knowledgeable about the entire screen printing process.
i .......
The products in System Omicron-AF were not observed to be detrimental to the
screen mesh, the printing equipment during the performance demonstration. Print image
quality was not affected. !
! 137
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM PHI i
I
! '
Facility Profiles |
i '
The operating conditions for each facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Phi for one month are described below. This information is provided
as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product system at
each of these two facilities. j
i
Profile of Facility 5 |
Facility 5 makes interior signs, j marks parts, and prints identification badges.
Primarily, they print on plastics and on metals. A typical run is 100 pieces, and
approximately 80% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the 15 employees at this facility,
approximately 3 are involved in screen printing operations and 1 employee is responsible for
screen reclamation activities. The facility uses a variety of solvent-based inks including
vinyl-based inks, epoxy inks and a multipurpose ink. They use capillary film for their
emulsion. All screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were polyester (no treatment)
with a typical mesh count of 305 threads/inch. The average screen size at this facility is 20"
x 20" and approximately 2-3 screens are reclaimed daily.
I :; . ' . ' '
The standard ink remover used ati Facility 5 is a blend which contains 55% - 56%
propylene glycol ether. For emulsion reinoval, they use a product which contains sodium
metaperiodate (5%) and their standard halze remover contains sodium hydroxide (< 15%).
The application procedure for the alternative product system was very similar to the standard
procedures used at this facility. j
Profile of Facility 23 I
The majority of the products printed by Facility 23 are front panels, overlays, and
labels on plastics. They also do some printing on paper, metals, and glass. Run lengths are
typically 150 impressions, and approximately 82% of their business is for repeat orders.
There are less than 5 employees at this facility and two are involved in screen reclamation
operations. The facility uses several types of solvent-based inks including vinyls, acrylic
vinyls, and epoxy inks. They use a dual-cure emulsion and a multifilament (untreated)
polyester mesh. Mesh counts used in the! Performance Demonstrations ranged from 195 -
305 threads/inch. The average screen size at this facility is 1,305 in2 and approximately 3 -
5 screens are reclaimed daily. ;
For ink removal, Facility 23 uses a proprietary blend which contains at least xylene,
propylene glycol methyl ether, and diacetone alcohol. Their standard emulsion remover
product is 100% sodium periodate, and their standard haze remover is a proprietary aqueous
mixture which contains sodium hydroxide (< 15%). This facility did not have to modify
their product application procedures when switching from their standard ink and emulsion
removers to the alternative products. The alternative haze remover required up to a 30
minute wait, which tended to disrupt the production schedule at this facility. This
inconvenience may have influenced the printers opinion of the products.
138
-------
Product System Phi Performance Details from Each Facility
I
I
Performance Details from Facility 5
At the conclusion of the Performance. Demonstrations, the printer was asked to
compare the performance of each component of Product System Phi to the system they
previously used at this facility. Overall, thb printer felt the emulsion remover worked better,
and the ink remover and the haze remover 'did not work as well as their previous reclamation
products. I
i.........'. ,
On most screens the printer reported that the ink was removed effectively, however,
there was an light to moderate ink haze remaining on 35% of the screens after using the Ink
remover. This facility found the ink rempver performance was the same whether used on
vinyl inks or on epoxies. Although not included in the Performance Demonstration protocol,
the printer used this product as an in-process ink remover, not just as a reclamation ink
remover. He found it would start to deteriorate the stencil if left on the screen for more than
a few seconds. By spraying on the ink remover, wiping it off very quickly, and allowing
the screen to dry before printing, he was able to use it in-process without affecting the print
quality. \
The printer was very enthusiastic about the emulsion remover, commenting that it
consistently dissolved the stencil very quickly with minimal effort. After the conclusion of
the Performance Demonstrations, he requested more information on the product so he could
continue to use it in his facility. I
The haze remover performance was not up to the standards of this printing facility.
When following the manufacturer's application instructions, the haze remover did not remove
the haze satisfactorily. The printer commented that he thought the haze remaining on the
screen would deteriorate the screen over time. To improve the performance, the printer let
the haze remover sit on the screen overnight (instead of the recommended 3-5 minutes),
he wiped the product off with rags before pressure washing, and he tried using more ink
remover hoping that there would be less ink stain later. None of these techniques improved
the performance of the product. The printer did note that he preferred the very mild odor
of this product to the strong, unpleasant ojdor of his own haze remover.
In reviewing the data from the printer's evaluation forms, there does not seem to be
a correlation between any specific screen! condition (e.g., ink type, ink color, number of
impressions) and variations in the product performance. Overall, the use of Product System
Phi had no deleterious effects on the screen mesh or on the subsequent print quality imaige
and the printer did not notice any change in screen failure rate over the time period that the
alternative products were in use.
Performance Details from Facility 23
Generally, this facility felt the emulsion remover worked well, but they were not
satisfied with the ink remover and the haze remover of Product System Phi. While the
actual performance of the alternative products was often adequate, the procedures involved
i • . .
i
! 139 " .
-------
I
with using the products disrupted the facility's routine. After two weeks of demonstrations,
this facility discontinued their participation in the project and only submitted data on 8
screens. In addition to problems with !the product application procedures, this facility
experienced personnel problems that contributed to their decision to discontinue their
participation after two weeks. The main (screen printer/screen reclaimer involved with the
demonstrations was absent for two weeks in the middle of the project. No screen
reclamation with the alternative products continued during her absence. When she returned,
so much work had accumulated that the facility decided they could not spare the time for the
demonstrations. j
•'!''-'
i
The printer found the performance 3f the ink remover to be inconsistent. When using
metallic inks, the alternative ink remover worked better than their standard product. With
other ink types, the ink remover did not (effectively remove the ink from the edges of the
stencil and it did not remove as much ink] from the screen as their standard product. Their
standard ink remover is a solvent blend wjhose chemical composition is very different from
that of the alternative ink remover. On older screens that have been reclaimed many times,
adverse chemical interactions between the standard product and the alternative product comld
occur due to these differences. j
The printer felt the emulsion remoter was as effective as their standard product, and
it dissolved the stencil faster than their standard emulsion remover. Product System Phi haze
remover required more contact time with the screen than this facility's usual haze remover.
This additional waiting time impeded the facility's ability to reuse screens at the needed rate.
In addition to the inconvenient wait time,1 the haze remover often did not reduce the haze
sufficiently and the facility had to follow up with their usual product before the screen could
be reused. The printer noted that the hajze remover was less irritating to the respiratory
system than their usual haze remover. !
During the two weeks the products: were used in this facility there was no noticeable
mesh deterioration, no change in the screen failure rate, and no change in print quality.
i
i 140
-------
PRODUCT SYSTEM ZETA ! -
| .
Facility Profiles I
I •
The operating conditions for each {facility that volunteered to reclaim their screens
using Product System Zeta for one month are described below. This information is provided
as a basis of comparison to review the performance results of alternative product system at
each of these three facilities. I
Profile of Facility 6 i
Facility 6 prints store displays, transit markings, and movie posters on plastics aind
paper. Their typical run length is 250 - 3100 sheets, and approximately 5% of their orders
are repeat orders. Of the approximately 25 employees at this facility, 1 - 3 are involved: hi
screen reclamation. Currently, they used solvent-based, water-based, and UV inks, but they
are in the process of discontinuing their use of solvent-based ink systems. All screens used
in the Performance Demonstrations were made of a polyester mesh with thread counts
ranging from 280 - 420 threads/inch. The average screen size used at this facility is 35 ft2
and 10 - 15 screens are reclaimed daily.
i ..-..- i
Facility 6 uses a proprietary blend which contains propylene glycol ethers (<50%)
as their standard ink remover. Their emulsion remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture
with periodate salt (< 10%). For haze reinoval, they use a proprietary blend consisting of
at least sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and propylene glycol ether. The application
procedures for the alternative products were similar to the methods for applying the standard
products. i
Profile of Facility 7 j
Facility 7 prints roll labels, fleet markings, point of purchase displays, and decais.
A typical run length is 275 sheets. There: are less than 5 screen printing employees at this
facility. The facility uses both UV ink and solvent-based ink. During the Performance
Demonstrations they used a capillary film emulsion and the screen mesh was an abraded
polyester. Mesh counts ranged from 230 4 390 threads/inch. The screen size typically used
in this facility is 60" x 52", and 10 -12 screens are reclaimed daily.
| '-..-.
For ink removal, Facility 7 uses lacquer thinner, as well as a proprietary product sold
by a manufacturer not participating in the performance demonstration. The MSDS states that
this product contains no carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum
derivatives. Their standard emulsion remover is a proprietary aqueous mixture which
contains periodate salt ( < 10%). As a haze remover, they use a proprietary aqueous mixture
with sodium hydroxide (< 15%). At tnis facility, the application procedures for their
standard products were very similar to | the methods recommended for the alternative
products. However, the facility only applies their standard haze remover to about one screen
per month. The alternative haze remover was needed for all screens. This additional effort
may have influenced the screen reclaimers opinions of the alternative product system
performance. |
I
I 141
-------
Profile of Facility 15 !
Facility 15 prints store fixtures, | banners and point-of-purchase displays. They
primarily print on plastics, but they also do some jobs on paper, metal, and wood. A typical
run is 800 sheets and 70% of their orders are repeat orders. Of the approximately 5
employees involved in screen printing at this facility, 2 are involved in screen reclamation
activities. Several different types of ink are commonly used at Facility 15, including vinyls,
epoxies and UV-cured inks. All screens used in the Performance Demonstrations were
polyester and a direct photo stencil emulsion was applied. Mesh counts during the
demonstration period ranged from 156 - 305 threads/inch. The average screen size used at
this facility is 35 inches x 45 inches and 4-5 screens are reclaimed daily.
| ' • •
For ink removal, Facility 15 uses acetone, as well as a proprietary product sold by
a manufacturer not participating in the performance demonstration. The MSDS states that
this product contains no carcinogens, no ingredients with TLVs or PELs, and no petroleum
derivatives. For emulsion removal, they use a proprietary aqueous mixture with at least
sodium periodate. Their standard haze remover is an aqueous blend consisting of potassium
hydroxide (27%) and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (11%). At this facility, the application
procedures for their standard products were very similar to the methods recommended for
the alternative products. However, the facility only applies their standard haze remover to
about 5 % of their screens. The alternative haze remover was needed for all screens. This
additional effort may have influenced the screen reclaimers opinions of the alternative
product system performance. i
I ' ' ' "
Product System Zeta Performance Details1 from Each Facility
. j ... .
1
Performance Details from Facility 6
This facility had mixed success with System Zeta. The demonstrations were
complicated by the fact that the screen reclaimers spoke almost no English and the forms had
to be translated into Spanish. Two different reclaimers participated in the demonstrations,
but another person was involved to either) translate the reclaimer's forms or to write down
results. Because of this situation, the observer was not confidant that all the information
received was accurate. Another confounding factor was that the product arrived late at the
facility and the observer was not present to assist the printer with the application instructions
and with trouble-shooting, as was done alt most other facilities. It is possible that belter
results could have been achieved had the pbserver been present.
j .,„ .. , .
At Facility 6, the ink remover did'not work as well as their usual product. During
the demonstrations, this facility used the alternative products on screens with solvent-based,
UV-cured, «»ndswater-based| inks. The alternative ink remover performed poorly with
solvent-based inks, it worked well on one screen with water-based inks, and performance
was mixed on screens with UV inks. Facility 6 needed to use their regular remover to get
the ink out of several of the screens after using the alternative ink remover.
This facility had mixed results with the emulsion remover. In general, when the
emulsion remover was used at a strength; of three parts of product to one part water, or
I - '
I 142
-------
stronger, the stencil dissolved quickly, kt weaker concentrations, the emulsion remover
worked much more slowly than their usuai product and the printer needed to use their usual
emulsion remover to get the screens clean! However, these results were not consistent, and
on some screens where the stronger formulation was used, the stencil did not dissolve
completely. i
I -
The haze remover worked very poorly for this facility. It did not seem to reduce
haze produced by UV-cured or solvent-based inks and it was not used with water-based inks.
Performance Details from Facility 7
The alternative products arrived at Facility 7 during a very busy period. The
facility's initial response to the alternative products' performance was negative. The poor
initial performance combined with increased activity at the facility led to a situation where
little information was collected on alternative product performance. This facility also
received the alternative products shipment late and the observer did not have the opportunity
to assist the printer with the application! technique or to suggest procedures to improve
performance. This assistance was given through telephone conversations between the
observer and the facility contact, however! this may not have been as effective as in-person
support. !
The ink remover performance at Facility 7 was poor. The facility was particularly
unhappy with the directions which said to let the ink remover sit on the screen. The ink
remover dried quickly into the screens, stuck into the mesh and it was then completely
ineffective at removing ink. This facility was only able to use the ink remover if they
applied additional ink remover and began wiping it out of the mesh immediately. These
changes improved the performance of the; ink remover slightly, but often the facility used
their usual ink remover to remove all ink from the screens. Facility 7 did use the ink
remover on one screen with UV ink and fciund it worked much better. As their standard iink
remover, this facility uses a lacquer thinner in some cases. Adverse interactions could occur
when using the alternative ink remover because its chemical composition is very different
from lacquer. i
... _ ._„ .... .... _ ...}.. ...,.,....... ^ • .,,;...- ...•••-,.-..;.... ...',.-....... -.;:..• •. .",'„.•
Initially, the facility diluted one pate emulsion remover to five parts water. At this
concentration, the emulsion remover did j not dissolve the stencil unless the product was
reapplied. When they changed the dilution to one part emulsion remover to three parts
water, the stencil dissolved easily with little scrubbing effort. The facility did have problems
with the emulsion remover drying quickly into the mesh. Wiping the emulsion remover
immediately off of the screen aided the product's performance.
. .- •:'.::*:r:'.- "-•;.;. A-AX-fciv;:.: . - ' :... l>: • "•;,L'>: .•,..."-'.- -••..'.• ,'i'->•-••"••,'::•.'•, *.- •••• ..,.-• . •
-•--'•*-• '••• •"• . .;• .'Y, -"••"• -• - ' | •"•--,:';• •. ,--.-•:".'.. '.. -," ;•.••-".-."..•:- ' '-,-, '..•.'. - - '
The haze remover was not effective at this facility; they did not think that the haze
remover worked at all. Facility 7 only filled in the haze remover information on the data
sheets for one screen, although they tried it on several screens and the performance was
consistently disappointing, 1 .
143
-------
Performance Details from Facility 15
Facility 15 did not like System Zeta compared to their usual products. Under most
conditions, they were unhappy with thej performance of all three alternative products.
Because the alternative products did not wjork well, the facility recleaned their screens with
their usual products after each demonstration. This double cleaning greatly increased the
time required for screen reclamation. Each time the facility tried the alternative products,
their confidence in the product's abilities to clean the screen decreased making it even harder
to convince the facility to continue with the demonstrations. They submitted data on only
eight screens. i
i • '
The ink remover did not effectively remove the ink from the screens unless it was
applied several times. Compared to their standard product, more scrubbing was required and
the facility often had to follow up with their usual ink remover to get the ink out of the
screens. The standard ink remover is very) different chemically than the alternative product.
This difference may cause adverse chemical interactions.
i .-...'
At Facility 15, the emulsion removjer had to be applied multiple times to effectively
clean the screens. Using the emulsion remover undiluted did not eliminate the need for a
second application to remove all emulsion from the screen. Even with multiple applications
of the undiluted emulsion remover, Facility 15 often had to use their usual emulsion remover
to get the screens to the level of cleanliness that they wanted.
. i • . ' , . . .
The haze remover required harder scrubbing than their usual product and did not
seem to reduce the haze. Once again, Facility 15 had to resort to using their usual haze
remover to reduce the haze to an acceptable level.
The performance of the alternative products did not seem to be affected by the types
of ink or by ink color, although there was!a possibility that the alternative products worked
slightly better with UV-cured inks than with solvent-based inks. Since the data available was
so limited, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on correlations between product
performance variations and screen conditions. No screen side effects were noticed during
the performance demonstrations, although; increased scrubbing will produce a greater level
of mesh abrasion, which may in turn lead! to higher screen failure rates.
j 144
------- |