United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-98/050   June 1998
Project  Summary

Fugitive  Emission  Reductions
Due to  the Use  of Enclosed
Doctor  Blade  Systems  in the
Flexographic  and   Rotogravure
Printing  Industries
Mark A. Bahner, Dean R. Cornstubble, Keith E. Leese, and G. W. (Bill)
Deatherage
  This project summary describes the
results of an evaluation project to quan-
tify the level of fugitive emission reduc-
tions resulting from use of enclosed
doctor blade (EDB) systems in place of
traditional ink feed systems at
flexographic and rotogravure printing
operations. An EDB system is an inno-
vative ink feed system that contains an
enclosed ink chamber. Such a system
has the potential of limiting fugitive
emissions  from each  printing station
on a printing press.
  Traditional printing ink feed systems
employ ink pans; solvents in the ex-
posed pools of ink in these pans create
fugitive volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions. EDB  systems  elimi-
nate these exposed pools of ink, and
can therefore reduce VOC  emissions.
This project involved testing for fugitive
emissions  at flexographic and rotogra-
vure printing stations, to quantify the
potential emission reductions achieved
by EDB ink feed systems. Prior to this
testing, the magnitude of the emission
reduction  achieved by EDB  systems
had not been quantified.
  Testing was conducted on single-color
stations on flexographic and rotogra-
vure presses.  Emission  reductions
achieved by EDB systems  were mea-
sured, and printing station operators
evaluated the quality of the printing with
traditional  and EDB systems. Addition-
ally, evaporation rates from ink pools
were measured in a laboratory test.
  The  measured emission reductions
on the flexographic press ranged from
0.26 to 1.83kg/h with the press idle,
and 0.84 to 0.89 kg/h with the press
running. Measured emission reductions
for the rotogravure press ranged from
0.35 to 0.36 kg/h with the press idle,
and 0.83 kg/h  with the press running.
These  values were consistent with ink
pool evaporation rates measured in the
laboratory.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's National Risk Management Re-
search Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering infor-
mation at back).
Introduction
  Previous cooperative research  efforts
between Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have identified traditional ink feed
systems  as sources of emissions  in
flexographic and rotogravure printing op-
erations.  These ink feed systems are
therefore  areas  for  pollution  prevention
technology. Enclosed Doctor Blade (EDB)
systems, which eliminate several exposed

-------
ink surfaces found in traditional ink feed
systems, represent one  potential  pollu-
tion prevention technology.
  EDB systems can be expected  to re-
duce solvent usage during ink feed sys-
tem cleaning and  reduce  leftover  ink at
the end of a print run. The potential for
EDB systems to reduce emissions during
printing is  less certain.  Some  printers
maintain  that these systems reduce ex-
posed  ink surfaces such as the ink pan,
and  therefore  must  reduce emissions.
These  printers point to the fact that they
do  not need to add  as  much make-up
solvent to the ink during print runs. Other
printers question  this observation, and
believe that most fugitive emissions re-
sult from the ink exposed  on the  anilox
cylinder.  These printers believe that any
reduction  in fugitive  emissions is prob-
ably negligible, since EDB  systems are
similar to traditional  systems in that ink
on the anilox cylinder is still exposed to
air.
  The purpose of this testing was to mea-
sure volatile organic compound  (VOC)
emissions from flexographic and rotogra-
vure presses operating with traditional and
EDB ink feed systems. Additionally, print-
ing quality was evaluated for the  EDB
system  on  a  rotogravure press,  since
EDBs are not commonly used as  ink de-
livery  equipment in rotogravure printing.


Methods and Materials
  Emission  reductions achieved by EDB
systems were measured for a single-color
station on  flexographic and  rotogravure
presses. Temporary enclosures were con-
structed  around the  presses.  Emissions
were first measured with  the traditional
ink feed  systems  operating. Then emis-
sions were measured with  EDB systems
installed,  and  the emission reductions
were calculated.
  Emissions were determined  by mea-
suring  air flow rates  and  pollutant con-
centrations at all inlets to and outlets from
the enclosures. Air flow rates were mea-
sured by pitot  tube (differential pressure)
or by  hot-wire anemometer, depending
on the air velocities  being  measured.  At
the flexographic printing facility, total hy-
drocarbon pollutant concentrations were
measured primarily with a portable flame
ionization  detector (FID). At the rotogra-
vure facility,  concentrations were mea-
sured  primarily with a  fixed-path-length
infrared spectrophotometer.
  In addition  to  hydrocarbon  emission
measurements, an attempt was made to
determine whether  the enclosures that
were constructed had  any influence  on
the emissions  from the traditional and
EDB ink feed  systems. This assessment
was performed by simultaneously  mea-
suring  both  hydrocarbon emissions and
capture efficiency of a tracer gas, at vary-
ing  rates  of  enclosure  exhaust (at  the
flexographic facility) or containment  (at
the rotogravure facility).
  The  tracer gas that was  used to mea-
sure enclosure  capture efficiency was
carbon dioxide (CO2). Enclosure capture
efficiency  was evaluated by the ratio of
mass measurements of CO2 injection rate
and  CO2  capture, as measured by CO2
concentration  measurements.
  After the  emissions  tests were per-
formed  at the two  printing facilities,  ink
evaporation  rates were  measured  in  a
laboratory, to  aid in understanding and
evaluating the  field testing results. These
laboratory ink pan measurements involved
pouring press-ready inks from  the two
facilities into small pans. The pans were
located on top of digital electronic scales,
underneath a laboratory hood.  The mass
loss (evaporation) rate  was monitored at
two  levels of  air flow over the  ink pool
surface. The areal evaporation  rates de-
termined  during  this laboratory  testing
were then compared with the field emis-
sions testing results.


Results and Discussion
  The  measured  emission  reductions  on
the flexographic press  ranged  from 0.26
to 1.83 kg/h with the press idle, and 0.84
to 0.89 kg/h with the press running. Mea-
sured  emission  reductions for  the  roto-
gravure press  ranged from 0.35 to 0.36
kg/h with  the  press  idle, and were 0.83
kg/h with the  press  running.
  Laboratory  ink pan  evaporation tests
were performed with the flexographic and
rotogravure inks.  These  laboratory tests
can  be combined with  estimates of the
ink pool surface areas at each of the two
facilities, to produce  predictions  of the
emission reduction  benefits of eliminat-
ing the ink pool  surface areas at  each
facility. The predicted emission reductions
range  from  0.11 to  0.28  kg/h  for the
flexographic press, and 0.18 to 1.12 kg/h
for the rotogravure press. The predictions
for the  flexographic press  are generally
lower than the measured  results, while
all the rotogravure results fell within the
predicted range.  It appears that  labora-
tory ink pan measurements can be  used
to provide order-of-magnitude predictions
for emission reductions achieved  by EDB
systems.
   Problems were experienced with the
CO2  tracer gas  injection and resulting
enclosure  capture  efficiency measure-
ments. These  problems  prevented defini-
tive conclusions  about the  effects of the
enclosures  on emissions from the tradi-
tional and EDB ink feed  systems.  How-
ever, the high enclosure exhaust rate used
on the flexographic system  appeared to
artificially increase emissions; future re-
search  on  evaporative  emissions within
enclosures  should consider this possibil-
ity.
  The  EDB  system   used  on   the
flexographic press resulted  in acceptable
printing quality. The EDB system used on
the rotogravure  press resulted in  unac-
ceptable printing quality,  even when  print-
ing line speed was slowed. However,  it
may have  been  possible to improve the
printing quality of the rotogravure  EDB
system, if  production requirements  had
not dictated a return to  the original sys-
tem.


Conclusions
  The  EDB system is currently commer-
cially  available for flexographic printing,
and reduces fugitive emissions. The EDB
system, as  installed  during the  test for
rotogravure  printing,  also reduced  fugi-
tive emissions. However, the EDB system
at the  rotogravure facility substantially
degraded  print quality, even  at reduced
line speeds. The  issue of printing quality
will need to  be addressed  before  EDB
can become a viable option for the  roto-
gravure printing  industry.

-------
  M. Bahner, D. Cornstubble, K. Lease, and G. Deatherage are with Research
    Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
  Carlos M. Nunez is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
  The complete report, entitled "Fugitive Emission Reductions Due to the Use of
    Enclosed Doctor Blade Systems in the Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing
    Industries," (Order No. PB98-137391; Cost: $36.00, subject to change) will be
    available only from
          National Technical Information Service
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield,  VA 22161
          Telephone: 703-487-4650
  The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at
          Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
          National Risk Management Research Laboratory
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
CenterforEnvironmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
     BULK RATE
POSTAGES FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/SR-98/050

-------