Just found out that another former co-worker has cancer. He still needs more tests to get a complete diagnosis and prognosis, so I can't say whether it is related to the chemicals used in printing. He also served in Viet Nam and probably had exposure to Agent Orange so that could be a factor as well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chemical useage & its effects on workers
- Thread starter Lukew
- Start date
Green Printer
Registered Users
Just found out that another former co-worker has cancer. He still needs more tests to get a complete diagnosis and prognosis, so I can't say whether it is related to the chemicals used in printing. He also served in Viet Nam and probably had exposure to Agent Orange so that could be a factor as well.
I see you work at a packaging plant. What type of packaging do you manufacture?
Just came across the following 2 washes. I feel sorry for what ever print shop is running them, makes you wonder how companies can get away with developing such a product.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNHDQEpioA8vd4S9pPYWbIoV_yrRSg
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNGmhCuAonF4ATxgRNDEixs3iWgieA
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNHDQEpioA8vd4S9pPYWbIoV_yrRSg
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNGmhCuAonF4ATxgRNDEixs3iWgieA
Sustainable
Banned
Just came across the following 2 washes. I feel sorry for what ever print shop is running them, makes you wonder how companies can get away with developing such a product.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNHDQEpioA8vd4S9pPYWbIoV_yrRSg
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...5tiYCA&usg=AFQjCNGmhCuAonF4ATxgRNDEixs3iWgieA
The manufacturers are relying on customer ignorance. In many countries you can sell whatever you want as long as the paperwork accompanying it looks official. Now this doesn't mean that the paper work is correct it just looks official.
If the buyer is too stupid to recognize what the health ramifications are that makes it better for the manufacturer and the selling agency or distributor to get a sale.
All of these recent post look like a schooling exercise in educating the industry on proper health and chemical hygiene.
Last edited:
Those two washes raise some interesting questions. First, no one would be selling formulas like these in order to reduce their costs (i.e. make more money at the expense of the customer's health) unless they are reprocessing solvent waste from some other industrial source. Most of the more exotic solvents listed on these two data sheets sell at premium prices compared to other, possibly less objectionable, solvents. Secondly, if the manufacturer is not formulating these products to maximize their profits, could they be trying to meet specifications presented to them by their customers? I doubt that any company is trying to harm their customers by selling toxic products (remember the people that make these products face a much higher and prolonged exposure risk to the ingredients than those who use the products). Perhaps people trained in chemistry and experienced in the solvent business have a different perspective on the health risks of solvents than the participants in this forum do. A pressman is exposed to more benzene each time they fill their car or motorcycle gas tank than they would be in months of pressroom work. Most gasoline sold worldwide contains at least seven percent benzene; compare this to the, usually trace, content of benzene in press washes and do the math.
This being said, greater customer awareness of chemical risk has moved the industry towards healthier products. What printers are willing to purchase dictates what the supply manufacturers make available, so if certain ingredients become unpopular (like chrome in fountain solution, chlorinated solvents in blanket wash, etc) they will disappear from the market.
This being said, greater customer awareness of chemical risk has moved the industry towards healthier products. What printers are willing to purchase dictates what the supply manufacturers make available, so if certain ingredients become unpopular (like chrome in fountain solution, chlorinated solvents in blanket wash, etc) they will disappear from the market.
Sustainable
Banned
Those two washes raise some interesting questions. First, no one would be selling formulas like these in order to reduce their costs (i.e. make more money at the expense of the customer's health) unless they are reprocessing solvent waste from some other industrial source. Most of the more exotic solvents listed on these two data sheets sell at premium prices compared to other, possibly less objectionable, solvents. Secondly, if the manufacturer is not formulating these products to maximize their profits, could they be trying to meet specifications presented to them by their customers? I doubt that any company is trying to harm their customers by selling toxic products (remember the people that make these products face a much higher and prolonged exposure risk to the ingredients than those who use the products). Perhaps people trained in chemistry and experienced in the solvent business have a different perspective on the health risks of solvents than the participants in this forum do. A pressman is exposed to more benzene each time they fill their car or motorcycle gas tank than they would be in months of pressroom work. Most gasoline sold worldwide contains at least seven percent benzene; compare this to the, usually trace, content of benzene in press washes and do the math.
This being said, greater customer awareness of chemical risk has moved the industry towards healthier products. What printers are willing to purchase dictates what the supply manufacturers make available, so if certain ingredients become unpopular (like chrome in fountain solution, chlorinated solvents in blanket wash, etc) they will disappear from the market.
Dan you mentioned the industry is going towards healthier products where are they available? What does a buyer look for to determine if it is a heather product? How do you dissect an MSDS to see if it is truthful?
Maybe Kevin from Kodak could assist .
You ask a difficult question. 'Healthier' is in the eye of the beholder and I will use chlorinated solvent as an example. Many people think chlorinated solvents were declared 'unsafe' and withdrawn from the market for health reasons but the phase out of chlorinated solvent manufacture was related to environmental, not health concerns. Pressroom solvents containing enough chlorinated solvent to render them non-combustible were sold for forty years as 'safety solvent' as they were significantly safer to use in an environment filled with paper, other solvents like alcohol, electric motors, and pressmen who used to smoke in the pressroom. The replacements for these products are usually combustible, if not flammable, placing a premium on them being safer in some other area, which they not always will be.
Perhaps a better answer to your question would be you need to communicate your concerns about specific ingredients you would like to avoid to your suppliers and buy the alternatives they suggest. Almost any, if not all, petroleum distillate solvents will be listed on a MSDS if it is prepared by a company complying with the US Hazzard Communication Act, I am not familiar with the MSDS requirements of other countries.
My experience from the fountain solution industry was that ingredients I considered to be safe to use were considered toxic in Europe (not toxic enough to not be present in common European consumer products though) where they considered breathing alcohol fumes to be therapeutic, I suppose. Since that time (back in the late 1980's) most European fountain solutions resemble very closely what we were selling twenty-five years ago and the objections to the ingredients are apparently long forgotten.
Modern life is filled with chemical exposures, ranging from aluminum and other metals in the bread you eat to glycol ethers in the beer and wine you consume, to surfactants in your shaving cream or deodorant, to complex biological agents in meats, just to name a few. The various chemists and medical people I have worked with or lived with over the years are less concerned about these exposures than people without these educational backgrounds, although I do not blame you for being suspicious and would encourage you to continue to pressure your suppliers for safer products, whatever that may mean.
Perhaps a better answer to your question would be you need to communicate your concerns about specific ingredients you would like to avoid to your suppliers and buy the alternatives they suggest. Almost any, if not all, petroleum distillate solvents will be listed on a MSDS if it is prepared by a company complying with the US Hazzard Communication Act, I am not familiar with the MSDS requirements of other countries.
My experience from the fountain solution industry was that ingredients I considered to be safe to use were considered toxic in Europe (not toxic enough to not be present in common European consumer products though) where they considered breathing alcohol fumes to be therapeutic, I suppose. Since that time (back in the late 1980's) most European fountain solutions resemble very closely what we were selling twenty-five years ago and the objections to the ingredients are apparently long forgotten.
Modern life is filled with chemical exposures, ranging from aluminum and other metals in the bread you eat to glycol ethers in the beer and wine you consume, to surfactants in your shaving cream or deodorant, to complex biological agents in meats, just to name a few. The various chemists and medical people I have worked with or lived with over the years are less concerned about these exposures than people without these educational backgrounds, although I do not blame you for being suspicious and would encourage you to continue to pressure your suppliers for safer products, whatever that may mean.
You ask a difficult question. 'Healthier' is in the eye of the beholder and I will use chlorinated solvent as an example. Many people think chlorinated solvents were declared 'unsafe' and withdrawn from the market for health reasons but the phase out of chlorinated solvent manufacture was related to environmental, not health concerns. Pressroom solvents containing enough chlorinated solvent to render them non-combustible were sold for forty years as 'safety solvent' as they were significantly safer to use in an environment filled with paper, other solvents like alcohol, electric motors, and pressmen who used to smoke in the pressroom. The replacements for these products are usually combustible, if not flammable, placing a premium on them being safer in some other area, which they not always will be.
Perhaps a better answer to your question would be you need to communicate your concerns about specific ingredients you would like to avoid to your suppliers and buy the alternatives they suggest. Almost any, if not all, petroleum distillate solvents will be listed on a MSDS if it is prepared by a company complying with the US Hazzard Communication Act, I am not familiar with the MSDS requirements of other countries.
My experience from the fountain solution industry was that ingredients I considered to be safe to use were considered toxic in Europe (not toxic enough to not be present in common European consumer products though) where they considered breathing alcohol fumes to be therapeutic, I suppose. Since that time (back in the late 1980's) most European fountain solutions resemble very closely what we were selling twenty-five years ago and the objections to the ingredients are apparently long forgotten.
Modern life is filled with chemical exposures, ranging from aluminum and other metals in the bread you eat to glycol ethers in the beer and wine you consume, to surfactants in your shaving cream or deodorant, to complex biological agents in meats, just to name a few. The various chemists and medical people I have worked with or lived with over the years are less concerned about these exposures than people without these educational backgrounds, although I do not blame you for being suspicious and would encourage you to continue to pressure your suppliers for safer products, whatever that may mean.
Dan, you have raised some good points with both your replys. I do realise that everyday living exposes us to a whole range of chemicals that "could" have a negative impact on out health.
It seems the MSDS in Australia even though it is the 16 part type, actually contains less possible critical health information in relation to the MSDS used in the USA.
I guess it is just alarming when you start to cross check cas# of products you have used for years, that have no listed serious health warnings in the MSDS, yet you find out otherwise when you dig deeper.
Say you work in a print factory that has low ceilings and no air extraction fans, and you use the chemicals that we are talking about for 40 - 50 years. Are you saying you would have less concern about these chemicals then that of what you would come in contact in the outside world? Surely it has to have a detrimental effect on you health.
One of you your comments "Perhaps a better answer to your question would be you need to communicate your concerns about specific ingredients you would like to avoid to your suppliers and buy the alternatives they suggest."
I followed this direct route and failed to make headway, possibly because the suppliers don't have an alternative.
Lets look at a few simple products that I contacted all known suppliers here for a safer - healthier alternative.
For instance if I ring and say I want a roller and blanket wash that contains zero petrolium distilates and not to contain the widely used petrollium naptha light - medium - heavy.
I then get sent through MSDS of the product they recommend and it is loaded with the exact chemicals I had just stated I did not want to use.
A safer metering roller cleaner .
Yes we have one that is much safer & doesn't contain acetone - Receive MSDS, its full of n-hepatane. Safe?
Sustainable
Banned
You ask a difficult question. 'Healthier' is in the eye of the beholder and I will use chlorinated solvent as an example. Many people think chlorinated solvents were declared 'unsafe' and withdrawn from the market for health reasons but the phase out of chlorinated solvent manufacture was related to environmental, not health concerns. Pressroom solvents containing enough chlorinated solvent to render them non-combustible were sold for forty years as 'safety solvent' as they were significantly safer to use in an environment filled with paper, other solvents like alcohol, electric motors, and pressmen who used to smoke in the pressroom. The replacements for these products are usually combustible, if not flammable, placing a premium on them being safer in some other area, which they not always will be.
Perhaps a better answer to your question would be you need to communicate your concerns about specific ingredients you would like to avoid to your suppliers and buy the alternatives they suggest. Almost any, if not all, petroleum distillate solvents will be listed on a MSDS if it is prepared by a company complying with the US Hazzard Communication Act, I am not familiar with the MSDS requirements of other countries.
My experience from the fountain solution industry was that ingredients I considered to be safe to use were considered toxic in Europe (not toxic enough to not be present in common European consumer products though) where they considered breathing alcohol fumes to be therapeutic, I suppose. Since that time (back in the late 1980's) most European fountain solutions resemble very closely what we were selling twenty-five years ago and the objections to the ingredients are apparently long forgotten.
Modern life is filled with chemical exposures, ranging from aluminum and other metals in the bread you eat to glycol ethers in the beer and wine you consume, to surfactants in your shaving cream or deodorant, to complex biological agents in meats, just to name a few. The various chemists and medical people I have worked with or lived with over the years are less concerned about these exposures than people without these educational backgrounds, although I do not blame you for being suspicious and would encourage you to continue to pressure your suppliers for safer products, whatever that may mean.
My thought as a starting point for safer products are those that do not contain components from the following list.
EU Reach list.
California prop 65 list
Sara 313 list
EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) list
Australia Hazardous Substances Information System list
It has been my experience dealing with chemical vendors that they are clueless on the toxicity of their products.
They may know if there chemistry meet any local regulation like we have here in CA but they don't know or care how what they are selling affects the user.
When I question one of my past vendors on the toxicity of a new blanket that met the regulations for VOC's for southern CA their comment to me was "We are not interested in the toxicity of the wash only that it meets the new VOC regulations allowing us to sell it in CA". Needless to say we no longer use this vendor anymore.
Vendors are not going to change their chemistry to be less toxic unless we the user stop buying them and start buy safer products. Money talks.
They may know if there chemistry meet any local regulation like we have here in CA but they don't know or care how what they are selling affects the user.
When I question one of my past vendors on the toxicity of a new blanket that met the regulations for VOC's for southern CA their comment to me was "We are not interested in the toxicity of the wash only that it meets the new VOC regulations allowing us to sell it in CA". Needless to say we no longer use this vendor anymore.
Vendors are not going to change their chemistry to be less toxic unless we the user stop buying them and start buy safer products. Money talks.
I see you work at a packaging plant. What type of packaging do you manufacture?
Folding cartons.
Washing rollers and blankets with anything other than solvent products has never been my idea of fun or efficiency. Wash products made from vegetable oil esters are weak, do not
evaporate, and leave me and the rollers feeling greasy. Glycol ether based washes are little better. The state of California has placed some pretty severe restrictions on wash formulations, but these restrictions target volatility, not health, so these products would not be of much interest to you. All petroleum distillate products, regardless of which fraction or cut they represent, all come from the same source, crude oil. Unfortunately, the most volatile components, the ones most free of contamination with the more toxic components of crude oil like benzine, are quite flammable and often not very strong. In my opinion, they would be the safest to handle from a health effect standpoint, but their flammability is a serious trade-off.
Low odor lacolene has always been my choice for metering roller cleaner, it dries quickly and leaves no residue, downsides are it is not strong and is flammable. The FOGRA people only allow the use of what is called 140 solvent, sometimes called Stoddard Solvent, which is combustible rather than flammable (flash point 140), but is weak and slow to evaporate.
Ventilation is always the key when dealing with solvent exposure and it is usually more efficient to blow air into, rather than out of, a confined space like a low ceilinged pressroom.
Since you are in Australia, you might contact someone at the BP refinery in Sydney where I am sure you would find someone who would be happy to assist you with what fractions are available in OZ, and which (if any) might be the least objectionable to you. I do not know if they still sell directly to the printing industry (they did in the early 1990's).
evaporate, and leave me and the rollers feeling greasy. Glycol ether based washes are little better. The state of California has placed some pretty severe restrictions on wash formulations, but these restrictions target volatility, not health, so these products would not be of much interest to you. All petroleum distillate products, regardless of which fraction or cut they represent, all come from the same source, crude oil. Unfortunately, the most volatile components, the ones most free of contamination with the more toxic components of crude oil like benzine, are quite flammable and often not very strong. In my opinion, they would be the safest to handle from a health effect standpoint, but their flammability is a serious trade-off.
Low odor lacolene has always been my choice for metering roller cleaner, it dries quickly and leaves no residue, downsides are it is not strong and is flammable. The FOGRA people only allow the use of what is called 140 solvent, sometimes called Stoddard Solvent, which is combustible rather than flammable (flash point 140), but is weak and slow to evaporate.
Ventilation is always the key when dealing with solvent exposure and it is usually more efficient to blow air into, rather than out of, a confined space like a low ceilinged pressroom.
Since you are in Australia, you might contact someone at the BP refinery in Sydney where I am sure you would find someone who would be happy to assist you with what fractions are available in OZ, and which (if any) might be the least objectionable to you. I do not know if they still sell directly to the printing industry (they did in the early 1990's).
Sustainable
Banned
Dan
Is ths cas number for lacolene 64742-89-8?
Lacolene goes by many names and could have a different cas number.
Is ths cas number for lacolene 64742-89-8?
Lacolene goes by many names and could have a different cas number.
Green Printer
Registered Users
Folding cartons.
Do you have to use any special fountain solutions or washes to do folding cartons?
Dan
Is ths cas number for lacolene 64742-89-8?
Lacolene goes by many names and could have a different cas number.
We bought a product from a supplier that was a blend of 8030-30-6 and Heptane marketed as "Low Odoer Lacolene" containing <1% aromatics and I am sure something similar is available everywhere. Heptane is considered by many to be less of an exposure issue than hexane or other flammable solvents.
I am not comfortable flogging products on Print Planet. If you want you can call me or e-mail me at [email protected]
This is the issue we face & a reason I feel there needs to be a worldwide chemicals safety recognition process
Please take a look at
CAS# 8030-30-6 HSIS - Search Hazardous Substances
CAS# HSIS - Search Hazardous Substances
You will see that AICS here in Australia both list them as a Carcinagenic & mutagenic. This is the reason that I'm so disgruntled against suppliers here not listing health issues such as this in the MSDS
Please take a look at
CAS# 8030-30-6 HSIS - Search Hazardous Substances
CAS# HSIS - Search Hazardous Substances
You will see that AICS here in Australia both list them as a Carcinagenic & mutagenic. This is the reason that I'm so disgruntled against suppliers here not listing health issues such as this in the MSDS
CAS 8030-30-6
Cas No Substance Name UN No Classification Labelling CutOffs Source H Type Standard Name Standard Synonyms Standard Cas No TWA (ppm) TWA (mg/m3) STEL (ppm) STEL (mg/m3) Carcinogen Category Notices Ref View History
8030-30-6 Naphtha [Low boiling point naphtha](Note: Refined, partly refined, or unrefined petroleum products produced by the distillation of natural gas. It consists of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C5 through C6 and boiling in the range of approximately 100 °C to 200 °C (212 °F to 392 °F).) Carc. Cat. 2; R45 Muta. Cat. 2; R46 Xn; R65 T R: 45-46-65 S: 53-45 Notes: H ; P Conc>=10%: T; R45; R46; R65
>=0.1%Conc<10%: T; R45; R46 Eu H View History
Cas 64742-89-8
Cas No Substance Name UN No Classification Labelling CutOffs Source H Type Standard Name Standard Synonyms Standard Cas No TWA (ppm) TWA (mg/m3) STEL (ppm) STEL (mg/m3) Carcinogen Category Notices Ref View History
64742-89-8 Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliph. [Low boiling point naphtha](Note: A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained from the distillation of crude oil or natural gasoline. It consists predominantly of saturated hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C5 through C10 and boiling in the range of approximately 35 °C to 160 °C (95 °F to 320 °F).) Carc. Cat. 2; R45 Muta. Cat. 2; R46 Xn; R65 T R: 45-46-65 S: 53-45 Notes: H ; P Conc>=10%: T; R45; R46; R65
>=0.1%Conc<10%: T; R45; R46 Eu H View History
Cas No Substance Name UN No Classification Labelling CutOffs Source H Type Standard Name Standard Synonyms Standard Cas No TWA (ppm) TWA (mg/m3) STEL (ppm) STEL (mg/m3) Carcinogen Category Notices Ref View History
8030-30-6 Naphtha [Low boiling point naphtha](Note: Refined, partly refined, or unrefined petroleum products produced by the distillation of natural gas. It consists of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C5 through C6 and boiling in the range of approximately 100 °C to 200 °C (212 °F to 392 °F).) Carc. Cat. 2; R45 Muta. Cat. 2; R46 Xn; R65 T R: 45-46-65 S: 53-45 Notes: H ; P Conc>=10%: T; R45; R46; R65
>=0.1%Conc<10%: T; R45; R46 Eu H View History
Cas 64742-89-8
Cas No Substance Name UN No Classification Labelling CutOffs Source H Type Standard Name Standard Synonyms Standard Cas No TWA (ppm) TWA (mg/m3) STEL (ppm) STEL (mg/m3) Carcinogen Category Notices Ref View History
64742-89-8 Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliph. [Low boiling point naphtha](Note: A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained from the distillation of crude oil or natural gasoline. It consists predominantly of saturated hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C5 through C10 and boiling in the range of approximately 35 °C to 160 °C (95 °F to 320 °F).) Carc. Cat. 2; R45 Muta. Cat. 2; R46 Xn; R65 T R: 45-46-65 S: 53-45 Notes: H ; P Conc>=10%: T; R45; R46; R65
>=0.1%Conc<10%: T; R45; R46 Eu H View History
Sustainable
Banned
Hurry hurry hurry get your CAS# 8030-30-6 chemicals right here. Carcinogenic & mutagenic option obsoletely free. Its two product in one a cleaner for the press with a carcinogenic enabler and a free mutagenic initiator. In fact if you order just one liter we will add the second liter for free all you pay is the shipping and handling.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2221
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1831
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 4050
PressWise
|
A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos
As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line. “We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month. Learn how……. |
