N-propyl alcohol versus Isopropanol alcohol

[BMM Print Ltd]

Hi Alois, yes 2in1 is manufactured in South Africa and distributed throughout Africa, Australasia, Europe and the UK. We are having tremendous success with this product on polyester plates. For information please view BM Management - Specialist Chemicals for the Printing Trade

Hi Lukew, are you using 2in 1 Fountain Sol. from the South African Company - BM Management SA ??????

I have no experience of printing from Polyester Plates !!!


Regards, Alois

[BMM Print Ltd]

Hi LukeW, Thank you for quoting an honest reference to our product. Regards Carol Kirk BMM Print UK.

We had been in contact with our suppliers, and none of them sold N-propyl so we had two options, keep using our current fount, with a dose of 3.5% IPA or give the 2in1 fount a trial,

Trialing of the 2in1 got the nod, and it has been in the press for 2 weeks now,
Our main reason for giving it a go, was the fact that if it was to work we no longer had neat IPA on the premisise, + if it lived up to all its hype it would be a god send.

Our current fount had given us the ability to get down to 2% IPA, but as the days started getting warmer, this % number started to increase, to a point were we hovered between 3.5% - 5% IPA and up to 7% on tricky jobs, Our water % feed rate was starting off at +50 - 60 and ending as high as 75-80 on some PMS coloured jobs, which was simply too high and we could see that come summer time it would only get worse.
also the water feed % rates was unpredictable, you could print the same job the following day and have totaly different settings, this of course lowers the acuracy of cip 3 as the different water % feed rates plays havoc with ink density.

So in comes the 2in1 fount. dosed so we get a reading of 8% NPA
our water dials are starting on 35% and ending no higher then 40% by the end of shift with only the last deck near the IR dryer going up to 42 % on the odd time. the last few days they have ended no higher then 38% These figures are with both cmyk or PMS inks.
As you can see with such a stable water feed % rate, it gives you the ability to fine tune cip3 even further,
whether we're going from a light coverage job to a full coverage job, our water feed rate is near the same, and we're at correct density within 30 sheets.

The plus's we have noticed
- no picture framing (ink buildup on the impression cylinders) we used to have this problem with all the other founts we have used
- minimal water needed to keep a smear free print, so much so we have now been able to run in intergrated mode when needed, which has nearly completly eradicated our banding problem on solids without any emusification problems
- there is more detail in our work now, as even the finest screens are open, looking at the dot structure under a 40X magnifying glass shows us why, its simply holding its shape and is incredibly sharp.
-We are using less ink to achieve density, especially with PMS colours. (before hand with low IPA we did strugle with certain colours and had to run an incredibly high water % feed to stop scumming up in screens)
- Start ups are fast and scum free.
-registration is much better, less water means less distortion of the sheet.
- drying time has improved
-no more cording from the metering roller

Anyone that runs or has run polyester plates would know that they do strugle to hold fount esspecialy when the temp gets up towards the end shift, but this fount seems to knock that problem on the head, and allows the plate to run near identical to metal plates.

I had a run of 30000 sheets 2 colour PMS,now normaly by the end of a run lenghth like that I would have increased my water feed rate by at least 25 points, but with 2in 1 I had only rasied it by 5points.

John, so fair your concerns of emusification by way of the n-propyl being too good a solvent has not arose.
I feel one of the main reasons it won't is because you have the ability to run such a fine amount of water, that there is very little water feed back into the ink rollers
We printed one PMS colour which normaly gives us emulsification problems as a test, and we were amazed at how sharp the print was. with no emuslification.

I will say that, while we are not as low voc emision wise as where we were at, our print quality has greatly improved,
Its not often that you can put a new fount in and straight away, throw your hardest jobs on the press for a trial, and have it just simply work, effortlesly bonus!

I can now honestly say, I like printing with poly plates, and up until now, you would never ever hear me saying that..

[zoros jensen]

NPA in its raw state is a 100% VOC, no different to IPA. Also, check the FOGRA website,
2in1 has a high nitrate content, ph should be more than 6.5.

[Lukew]

Zoros, please do tell..
What is there to be aware of??( I have had some of our other suppliers say the same thing, but none we're actualy able to tell me what I was ment to be aware of, or LOOKING out for..I'm sick to death of people baging something but not having anything to back up there comments)
Yes I've seen the fogra listing of high nitrate before.
Nitrate?? 1000+ppm exposure level, is it not?
are we talkin sodium /potassium/silver nitrate
Are you implying the ph level of 2in1 needs to be kept over 6.5 for a certain reason..or is it that nitrate deteriates the machine????

I was having a chat with another printer I know, and he was rambling on about the fact that both IPA/NPA, should be eradicated from the press room,, I asked to look at the msds of his fount..
one of the main chemicals in it was
2-BUTOXYETHANOL
Airborne Exposure Limits:
-OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL):
50 ppm skin
-ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV):
20 ppm (TWA), A3 - Confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans

Why arn't there alarm bells ringing with such chemicals used in fount solutions with incredibly low PPM exposure limits, please don't tell me there's anyone here that thinks 2-Butoxyethanol is safer.

Heres a pdf, that covers some of the health effects and exposure ppm levels, of all different glycol ether's a few of which can be found in most popular IPA replacment fount solutions
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hesi...ts/glycols.pdf

[zoros jensen]

Did you mean deteriorates? Perhaps the explanation for the FOGRA caveat should come from the manufacturer. At least the msds you quoted from didn't have any 'trade secrets' to hide behind. Could it be there are constituent parts that may not be user friendly? I merely ask the question, no need to be hostile!

[Lukew]

Zoros,
Sorry for being hostile,, it's been a very long day, and as I said your not the first to say beware, to this particular fount,, but gave no clues as to why it is so bad..I personaly feel to come out with such statements you need to be able to back it up with genuine reasons why.

Yes a lot of the founts hide behind the "trade secret" doesn't seem right to me,, I feel an msds should mean full disclosure or any chemicals, especialy harmful ones.

I wouldn't mind buying a nitrate tester just to see the levels in it, once its mixed with water,


"Did you mean deteriorates?" yes I did, were you implying that the fount needs to be kept over 6.5ph?

I still feel we have a healthier pressroom running 2in1 with an actual alcohol reading of 8% then compared to if we were running between 4.5% - 6% IPA with founts containing certain glycol ethers..

[Green Printer]

Lukew

Now start looking at press washes. You will find many have benzene that have been Fogra approved.
Keep looking.
Copy the following link. There are Hundreds of MSDS sheets

LehmanManufacturers

[zoros jensen]

No you are not running a greener pressroom. NPA is no different to IPA. It is still a 100% VOC. Put it this way: If we mix IPA and fount to 100litres of water we would get 10 litres of IPA and at a 2% dilution of fount solution. This would mean IPA dosed at 10% @ £1.10p to 100 litres of water costing £11.00p. Fount solution dosed at 2% @ £2.50p per litre would cost £5.00p. Total cost for a mix is £16.00p for 100 litres. I hear that 2in1 is dosed at 10% and at a cost in excess of £2.00p per litre. That is AT LEAST £20.00p per 100 litre mix. £4.00p AT LEAST more expensive per 100 litres I can sell IPA and decent fount solution for!!! Listen, 2and1 is not a greener product than IPA/fount, For sure, not cheaper from what I hear. Do the math; this product can cost you dear. I also know of many places that have removed 2in1 for problems of steel dampening rollers accepting ink, also the smell of the product, I know IPA is not good but I have been told this is particularly nauseous. I have problems with manufacturers that will not reveal all of constituent parts, no matter how small, I will not deal with them. This is why I say beware. Ask relevant questions; ask for documentation, FOGRA is an important organisation that conducts accelerated corrosion tests to ensure you do not put anything into your machine that could cause it long term damage. This is why Zoros, who does not lie, asks you to beware of 2and1 fount solution.

[Lukew]

Zoros,
I was lead to believe that 2in1 emitted les VOC's then a fount with IPA in it,, because NPA has a much lower vapour pressure..then IPA.
So your saying that running 2in1 with an alcohol reading of 8% is not equivelant to running normal fount with 6% IPA,, surley if you mix both at 8% the IPA would emite more due to its much higher vapor pressure

Two exerts taken from PNEAC forum regards low vapor pressure blanket/roller washes
"According to EPA's ACT for Offset Lithography, a cleaning solution with a composite VOC vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg at 68oF is equivalent to a wash containing 30% by weight VOC. There are some newer washes that have vapor pressures less than 10 that can be explored for use."

"Low vapor pressure washes, those with less than 10 mm Hg at 68oF, have been used with good results by printers. While they are considered 100% VOC, they result in lower VOC emissions because they do not readily evaporate. "

How is this principle not applied to IPA/NPA?

I will say the only difference we have had to do is wipe the dampning steel down of a morning before engaging the metering roller, if this is not done the steel does soemtimes except ink..(2in1 has a slight sticky residue when it dries)

Also i have to agree this stuff does have a very sweet smell to it..but its no worse then IPA..

We are having an envrionmental audit, some time over the next few weeks, conducted by experts, I will be bitterly disapointed if I find out through them that we have made a backwards step regards to a healthier pressroom and les environmental impact.

We have done the math's and it is not costing us anymore
2in1 is $6.00 L
IPA is $3.50 L
low IPA fount $12.00 L
our original normal fount $29.50 L

[zoros jensen]

I think this is open to interpretation. 25lts of 2in1 contains 80% NPA but the NPA is STILL a 100% VOC. True, NPA evaporates slower than IPA, but not by that much as it would be leaving residue on the stock material. I do not believe that it is good to compare blanket/roller washes with IPA/NPA. They have different jobs to perform and have no great need to evaporate as quickly. I believe also Voc levels can only be reduced by using less! There are many founts around now that can run quite happily with just 5% IPA provided there is good housekeeping on the press. Indeed, there is one from HDP, now owned by Varn, that claims it runs with 3% IPA. I have not seen this, so I am not so sure.