Chemical useage & its effects on workers

[Dan Roll]

Since the AICS in Australia considers those two solvents to be dangerous, there will be no other petroleum solvents they will consider safe. Just curious as to how the AICS in Australia classifies 64-17-5.
What type of material would you consider safe for washing rollers?

 

[Lukew]

Just curious as to how the AICS in Australia classifies 64-17-5.

RISK = R11 Highly flammable
Safety =2 keep out of reach of children
7 keep container tightly closed
16 keep away from sources of ignition.

Easy to do a search using the shortcut I provided.

 

[Green Printer]

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry is a wonderful test for petro soup components.

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Green Printer]

Since the AICS in Australia considers those two solvents to be dangerous, there will be no other petroleum solvents they will consider safe. Just curious as to how the AICS in Australia classifies 64-17-5.
What type of material would you consider safe for washing rollers?

64-17-5 is:
Alcohol, Cologne spirit, EIOH, Ethanol, Ethanol in alcoholic beverages, Ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol.

Permissible exposure limits 1000 ppm TWA
OSHA, IARC, NPT Carcinogen.
California Hazardous Substance Listed
Idaho Air Pollutant Listed
Massachusetts Haz Substance Listed
Minnesota Haz Listed
Pennsylvania Haz listed
Washington Air Contaminant listed


Place some 4 or 5 bowls in a closed office pour in some Vodka or maybe some Everclear and let them evaporate keep adding when the are dry. you will get drunk as a skunk in a 4 to 6 of hours.

You will flunk a Breathalyzer test in many parts of the world

It is illegal to buy in many states.
Canada
In Canada, Everclear is sold in the province of Alberta, but not in most other provinces. In British Columbia, it is available for purchase with a permit for medical use, research use, or industrial use only


Everclear (alcohol) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lukew]

Looking at a Blanket & Roller wash msds, it lists two Risk phrases
May cause skin drying and cracking
May cause lung damage if swallowed

Look further into the msds and under the protective clothing recommended during use
Nitrile gloves
Full apron
Suitable face gas mask
Exhaust ventilation.

What are they hiding in the risk phrases section to call for such a list of operator protection? hmmmm.

I'm also noting that a lot of msds are ended with a disclaimer, stating that the information contained is accurate to the best of their know, but it is up to the user to check that all information contained within is accurate. They take no responsibility for inaccurate information given.

 

[Lukew]

R45 does not have to be included if Benzene content is below 0.1%
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...htW6CA&usg=AFQjCNEThWtR3c579qpQ5ZB5ZULP_YuPXw

Issue is according to this document, most low benzene naphtha's still contain 2% - 5% Benzene
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...htW6CA&usg=AFQjCNEOOBzFtxwXCCAVkBwXSGsNdRCkwQ

Very interesting considering I was told by the chemist of a leading pressroom chemical supply company that 64742-48-9 Can not and does not contain benzene in anyway as a derivative.
Also would mean that the msds needs to include R45..

Enough on the roller washes, What about metering roller cleaners. What are your thoughts?

 

[Sustainable]

Looking at a Blanket & Roller wash msds, it lists two Risk phrases
May cause skin drying and cracking
May cause lung damage if swallowed

Look further into the msds and under the protective clothing recommended during use
Nitrile gloves
Full apron
Suitable face gas mask
Exhaust ventilation.

What are they hiding in the risk phrases section to call for such a list of operator protection? hmmmm.

I'm also noting that a lot of msds are ended with a disclaimer, stating that the information contained is accurate to the best of their know, but it is up to the user to check that all information contained within is accurate. They take no responsibility for inaccurate information given.

The companies are pleading ignorance of the law. This does not exempt them from any wrong doing. They are still liable for the accuracy of the paper work. Be pleading ignorance they also are indicating that if you are smarter or much more diligent in finding the correct info please lets us know.

If you the end user point out the problems and it goes to litigation this is probably what will happen.

The defense in a court of law would say that you the user new the ramifications of using the product and still elected to use it therefore my client(the chemical company) cannot be held liable for the product that you the user knew was of suspicious nature and could possible be a health threatening issue by using the product yet still choose to use it.

So legally they are trying to imply that they have their act covered and there is nothing you can do. Scare off the end user with legal mumbo jumbo and the problem usually goes away.

The second part of this is if you the employee made notice to your employer of your findings and they continued to purchase the product the employer could be in a very serious legal problem if they did not inform the chemical company of your findings and concerns. Your employer could not plead ignorance because he was made aware yet continued to purchase the product knowing the health issue associated with it use.

Now is this a MORAL and ETHICAL issue or just everyday doing business?

 

[Green Printer]

Looking at a Blanket & Roller wash msds, it lists two Risk phrases
May cause skin drying and cracking
May cause lung damage if swallowed

Look further into the msds and under the protective clothing recommended during use
Nitrile gloves
Full apron
Suitable face gas mask
Exhaust ventilation.

What are they hiding in the risk phrases section to call for such a list of operator protection? hmmmm.

I'm also noting that a lot of msds are ended with a disclaimer, stating that the information contained is accurate to the best of their know, but it is up to the user to check that all information contained within is accurate. They take no responsibility for inaccurate information given.

To make it much easier for litigation you need to show that the cas data was avaiiable before the MSDS or ESDS was written, published, or made available.. Since some countries require that the MSDS DATA BE UPDATED EVERY YEAR this should be easy.
In the country of the chemicals use check all available government data bases for any information. Look closely at the date the data was made available or published.
If the data was listed or available before the MSDS was written you have the law on your side. If the date of the cas# data preceeds the date of the published MSDS it means that the data IS also available to the company making the MSDS sheet. This negates their excuse of the best of their knowledge. Ignorance of available data is no longer an excuse. This puts the chemical company in a non-defenseable position.
Chemical data is available in many countries data bases. Just make sure that the data available is legally recognized as a source of information that can be used as evidence in your local legal venue.

 

[Dan Roll]

My attorney has always advised me the easiest way to spot someone who is not qualified to dispense legal advice is they will do it for free. Certainly the threat of litigation is always on the mind of chemical suppliers, but if you check with an actuary (a person who specializes in assessing risks for insurance companies) you will find printers are not considered to be at elevated risk of anything. One told me that taxi drivers have a greater chance of losing a finger than a printer since the end of the letterpress era.

 

[Lukew]

Not interested in litigation against anyone.
That is not what this thread was about, it was purely to discuss the range of chemicals used within the industry and their associated health effects.

I have been doing more research on the naphtha range of chemicals and it seems that during the fracking process it is possible to end up with a naphtha that contains less than 0.1% Benzene if they use the clean end of the spectum.
I've got an msds of a product that contains 30% - 60% 64742-95-6 and it has a Benzene content less than 0.1%.
I've got another MSDS for a product that contains the same cas number but its benzene content is 16.5%

 

[Green Printer]

Not interested in litigation against anyone.
That is not what this thread was about, it was purely to discuss the range of chemicals used within the industry and their associated health effects.

I have been doing more research on the naphtha range of chemicals and it seems that during the fracking process it is possible to end up with a naphtha that contains less than 0.1% Benzene if they use the clean end of the spectum.
I've got an msds of a product that contains 30% - 60% 64742-95-6 and it has a Benzene content less than 0.1%.
I've got another MSDS for a product that contains the same cas number but its benzene content is 16.5%

I began doing what you are now 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one bit.

IARC - INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol65/volume65.pdf

As for the litigation I was attempting to make aware it is a crime to knowingly falsify an MSDS sheet. In the USA it is a federal crime. With all of the databases that makes it almost impossible to say that the MSDS publisher did not know.

The sad part of it all is that many times change only comes from pressure with legal having the most influence to get the change accomplished.

 

[Dan Roll]

I think there may be some confusion between 95-63-6 and 71-43-2. Trimethylbenzene is not benzene. It will contain trace (parts per million) amounts of benzene, as it is refined from the same distillation cut benzene is. A product that contains less than one percent of 95-63-6 will contain less than one percent of whatever parts per million trimethylbenzene contains or some number of parts per ten-million of benzine. It is a mistake to consider any of the three commercially available trimethylbenzene products as being in the same category as a threat to health as benzene. Remember, gasoline contains more than 7% benzene.

 

[Sustainable]

I think there may be some confusion between 95-63-6 and 71-43-2. Trimethylbenzene is not benzene. It will contain trace (parts per million) amounts of benzene, as it is refined from the same distillation cut benzene is. A product that contains less than one percent of 95-63-6 will contain less than one percent of whatever parts per million trimethylbenzene contains or some number of parts per ten-million of benzine. It is a mistake to consider any of the three commercially available trimethylbenzene products as being in the same category as a threat to health as benzene. Remember, gasoline contains more than 7% benzene.

These links give the additional infromation

95-63-6 RTECSC3325000 The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances | CDC/NIOSH

71-43-2 RTECS:CY1400000 The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances | CDC/NIOSH

 

[Green Printer]

I think there may be some confusion between 95-63-6 and 71-43-2. Trimethylbenzene is not benzene. It will contain trace (parts per million) amounts of benzene, as it is refined from the same distillation cut benzene is. A product that contains less than one percent of 95-63-6 will contain less than one percent of whatever parts per million trimethylbenzene contains or some number of parts per ten-million of benzine. It is a mistake to consider any of the three commercially available trimethylbenzene products as being in the same category as a threat to health as benzene. Remember, gasoline contains more than 7% benzene.

Dan,
You mentioned two CAS#'s:
First: 71-43-2
This is benzene it is listed in the following
RCRA, CERCLA Haz Substance, SARA Toxic Release Chemical, HAP, OSHA, IARC, NTP Carcinogen, 1pp TWA (means 1 ppm in a cubic vol of air over 8 hrs max exposure),
CA Prop 65 listed, CA Hz Sub listed, Delaware listed, Idaho listed, Illinois listed, Maine listed, Mass listed, Michigan listed, Minnesota listed, New Jersey listed, New York listed, North Carolina listed, Pennsylvania listed, and Washington listed.


CAS#95-63-6 is 1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene listed:
SARA Toxic Release Chemical, 25 ppm TWA (very low ppm),
Delaware listed, Illinois listed, Maine listed, Massachusetts listed, Pennsylvania listed, New Jersey listed.
AND, 1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene deteriorates hoses, seals, and roller compounds. AND it stinks. So why use either as an ingredient?.

 

[printsnpaints]

Thank you so much everyone for this thread. It had never once crossed my mind to wonder what chemicals I was making myself susceptible to doing printing. Everyone has provided me some valuable insight. While I’m not going to stop doing what I love, I do intend to keep better track of my health to make sure no related problems arrive if I can stop it.

 

[Lukew]

Not sure if this link has been given.
INDEX BY CHEMICALS

Another good read
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...qYStCg&usg=AFQjCNFLuo49vZM9bwhT9L94qDQXCa8rSg

Dan where did you get the info that petrol in the USA has 7% benzene?

Component of gasoline

As a gasoline (petrol) additive, benzene increases the octane rating and reduces knocking. As a consequence, gasoline often contained several percent benzene before the 1950s, when tetraethyl lead replaced it as the most widely-used antiknock additive. With the global phaseout of leaded gasoline, benzene has made a comeback as a gasoline additive in some nations. In the United States, concern over its negative health effects and the possibility of benzene's entering the groundwater have led to stringent regulation of gasoline's benzene content, with limits typically around 1%.[37] European petrol specifications now contain the same 1% limit on benzene content. The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ has new regulations that will lower the benzene content in gasoline to 0.62% in 2011.[38]

In Australia I believe it is limited to 5%

 

[Dan Roll]

I would like to clarify that I am not attempting to justify or promote any petroleum distillate. What anyone uses to clean their press is up to them, and today's printer has a lot of information available to them to base a considered choice on. My overall point has been all petroleum distillates come from the same source and the data sheets posted by the forum participants draw little distinction between them. Based on some of the discussion, if you reject one petroleum distillate on health grounds, you pretty much have to reject them all. Unless people are willing to wash their blankets and rollers with mayonnaise (or some other emulsified oil product) I see little alternative to the use of some sort of solvent.

 

[Lukew]

Dan, I understand the last handful of posts have been caught up in regards to Naphtha based products, which in all honesty are most likely some of the safer petroleum type chemicals "products" that are in pressrooms around the world, when compared to other nasty chemicals that can be found in products like:
Deglazers
Calcium Removers
Back cylinder / dried ink cleaners
Metering roller cleaners

I don't understand your reasoning against vegetable "bio" washes. It seems some companies have developed ones that work and other chemical manufactures haven't.

 

[chevalier]

There has been a lot of talk around conventional presses.

What about digital printing (thermal, inkjet, etc.)?
What about prepress?
What about paper dust? (slightly mentioned)

 

[Dan Roll]

I do not have anything against emulsion washes; my characterizing them as mayonnaise was not meant to be disparaging, but as an explanation of what these washes are. Emulsified oil of one sort or another, regardless of the emulsifier used (eggs in the case of mayonnaise, surfactants in the case of press wash) produces a pretty thick product requiring dilution with some thinner material (usually petroleum distillate) to make a practical roller or blanket wash. A lot of work has been done in this area and I am sure there is more to come.