Chemical useage & its effects on workers

[Sustainable]

The petroleum based washes have been used for over 100 years. The only significant change in that time is water miscibility.


I do believe that the following quote from Albert Einstein describes this entire segment including all of the certifications.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

 

[Green Printer]

I received this email a few days ago from an educator. He asked if I would post this. Inlight of all that has come forward I thought it would be appropriate. With the internet and all of the information available it was inevitable to be become public knowledge. Smoking mirrors won't work anymore.

The following is the email.

" We are printers, you are a chemical manufacturer and we all know about the risks of robbery as a taxi driver. However seldom does the criminal tell the driver that he is in no danger and will give him a piece of paper that will certify it.
Again you are a chemical manufacturer not a cop so you should be aware that IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has the following published rating:

IARC: Printing process (occupational exposure in) 2B

2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

This blog is interesting and informative and will hopefully aid in a cleaner healthier industry so young people will enter the industry. Right now its considered an air conditioned coal-mine. It's not going to get fixed if we wave our "get away we are perfect, swords" in front of our critics and detractors. If printers of food packaging, medical packaging, pharmaceutical packaging, and cosmetic packaging can clean up their process on the same equipment used in the commercial print industry then so can we."

 

[Lukew]

Green Printer, I'm not aware of the guidelines for the food & pharmaceutical packaging printing,as I have only ever worked in the commercial sheet-fed sector. Do you have any links that I could view?

I have been in touch with AICS Australia & Work safe Australia in regards to two specific risk phrases R45 / R46 that they list for certain CAS# that are found in pressroom chemicals. I've informed them that these two risk phrases are being left of nearly all MSDS that we have received.
Two manufacturer's have been notified, but I'm yet to hear back from them, as to a reason why the two risk phrases are not on the MSDS.

I will be contacting both companies next week & if there isn't a legit reason for the this, according to work safe Australia they are to be contacted and a formal complaint has to be lodged.

So far there has only been one chemical manufacturer that although they haven't listed the R45/R46 they have it written in the MSDS and alerts you to the possible Carcinogen & mutagenic on their MSDS.

The weird thing is a lot of the MSDS from multiple manufacturer's are done through the same company "Chemwatch" So why the discrepancy?

If it is correct and there are no threshold rules that would allow them to leave the R45/R46 off the MSDS then I will gather as many MSDS from multiple manufacturers and lodge it with work safe Australia.

Full disclosure is needed, for too long these multinational companies have hidden behind their disclaimer's & it's time it comes to an end.

 

[Sustainable]

Green Printer, I'm not aware of the guidelines for the food & pharmaceutical packaging printing,as I have only ever worked in the commercial sheet-fed sector. Do you have any links that I could view?

I have been in touch with AICS Australia & Work safe Australia in regards to two specific risk phrases R45 / R46 that they list for certain CAS# that are found in pressroom chemicals. I've informed them that these two risk phrases are being left of nearly all MSDS that we have received.
Two manufacturer's have been notified, but I'm yet to hear back from them, as to a reason why the two risk phrases are not on the MSDS.

I will be contacting both companies next week & if there isn't a legit reason for the this, according to work safe Australia they are to be contacted and a formal complaint has to be lodged.

So far there has only been one chemical manufacturer that although they haven't listed the R45/R46 they have it written in the MSDS and alerts you to the possible Carcinogen & mutagenic on their MSDS.

The weird thing is a lot of the MSDS from multiple manufacturer's are done through the same company "Chemwatch" So why the discrepancy?

If it is correct and there are no threshold rules that would allow them to leave the R45/R46 off the MSDS then I will gather as many MSDS from multiple manufacturers and lodge it with work safe Australia.

Full disclosure is needed, for too long these multinational companies have hidden behind their disclaimer's & it's time it comes to an end.

Lukew I am looking forward to the answers on the MSDS.

 

[Green Printer]

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)

Digital inkjet inks: GLYMES are a component of almost all inkjet inks and will probably be severely restricted. Those that are presenlty using the technology will be granfathered in. Most Glymes are infinitely miscible. When something is infinitely miscible there are very few ways to remove it. Distillation is one.
The following shows these properties.
Clariant Services & Products - Exactly Your Chemistry - Solubility
Now you are a paper mill with a deinking operation for recycling paper fiber what do you do with all of the glymes that you have accumulated and concentrated in your water?

It’s glymes time: EPA takes on obscure chemicals in consumer products. — Environmental Health News
Glymes Proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) | Existing Chemicals | OPPT | US EPA


Almost all inkjet inks (notice how I did not say ALL) are dye based with a few water soluble pigment based. When you attempt to deink them the dyes just disperse more making the pulp a grayish very off-white color. To get it white you must bleach it out using various different processes. The problem with this is it destroys fiber and your recoverable fiber can be decreased by up to 40% and more. That makes fiber recovery a very loosing proposition financially and ecologically.
Another item is the cellulose insulation business can't use water based ink printed recycled fiber. The water based inks screw up the fibers ability to be treated with Borate Fire Retardant.
The inkjet or waterbased printed fiber can be reused for very heavily dye colored children's construction paper or downcycled into a very off-white low value sheet.

http://www.ingede.de/ingindxe/pdf/cepe-guide-2002.pdf
http://www.ingede.de/
http://www.cepi.org/Content/Default.asp
http://www.afandpa.org
http://www.therecyclingassociation.com/
http://www.paperonweb.com/org.htm

Liquid Toners HP Indigo
http://www.ingede.de/ingindxe/press/pr1003.html

Xerographic printed paper material may be ok for recyclablity depending on the manufacturer.

 

[Lukew]

What place do the following chemicals have in fountain solutions even if it is trace amounts & why are they there ?
Most alarming is dimethylnitrosoamine. As you can see even at extremely low levels it is considered hazardous. 0.001% still carries R45
Please refer to the Risk phrase chart.
HSIS - Risk and Safety Phrases

Cas 62-75-9 Dimethylnitrosoamine
62-75-9 Dimethylnitrosoamine [N-Nitrosodimethylamine; Methanamine; N-Methyl-N-nitroso] Carc. Cat. 2; R45 T+; R26 T; R25-48/25 N; R51-53 T+; N R: 45-25-26-48/25-51/53 S: 53-45-61; Note: E Conc>=25%: T+; R45; R26; R25; R48/25
>=10%Conc<25%: T+; R45; R26; R48/25; R22
>=7%Conc<10%: T+; R45; R26; R22; R48/22
>=3%Conc<7%: T; R45; R23; R22; R48/22
>=1%Conc<3%: T; R45; R23; R48/22
>=0.1%Conc<1%: T; R45; R20 >=0.001%Conc<0.1%; T; R45 Eu; A

Cas 123-91-1 1,4 Dioxane
123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane [Dioxane] 1165 F; R11-19 Carc. Cat. 3; R40 Xi; R36/37 R66 F; Xn R: 11 - 19 - 36/37 - 40 - 66 S: (2) - 9 - 16 - 36/37 - 46; Note: D Conc>=20%: Carc. Cat 3; Xn: R40; Xi: R36/37
>=1%Conc<20%: Xn; Carc. Cat 3; R40 Eu; A

Cas 75-21-8 ethylene oxide
123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane [Dioxane] 1165 F; R11-19 Carc. Cat. 3; R40 Xi; R36/37 R66 F; Xn R: 11 - 19 - 36/37 - 40 - 66 S: (2) - 9 - 16 - 36/37 - 46; Note: D Conc>=20%: Carc. Cat 3; Xn: R40; Xi: R36/37
>=1%Conc<20%: Xn; Carc. Cat 3; R40 Eu; A

Cas 75-07-0 acetaldehyde
75-07-0 Ethanal [Acetaldehyde] 1089 F+; R12 Carc. Cat. 3; R40 Xi; R36/37 F+ ; Xn ; R: 12 - 36/37 - 40 , S: (2) - 16 - 33 - 36/37 Conc>=20%: Xn; R40; R36/37
>=1%Conc<20%: Xn; R40 Eu; A

This is extremely alarming! How does one find out what trace amounts of these chemicals are in the fountain solution?

 

[Dan Roll]

Cas 123-91-1 1,4 Dioxane and Cas 75-21-8 ethylene oxide would be trace components of just about any of the vast array of ethoxylated alcohol surfactants widely used in the manufacture of just about everything. It is quite likely that many fountain solutions would contain one or more of these surfactants. Water-miscible washes, silicone emulsions, and just about any product sold as a gel, like hand cleaners, not to mention just about any cream or gel used in the personal care industry (shampoo, Oil of Olay type products, body lotions, etc.) are almost always made using these surfactants.

 

[Dan Roll]

As for trace amounts of Cas 75-07-0 acetaldehyde, I am not sure why this would be a problem, aldehydes, of which acetaldehyde is the most common, occur naturally in many food products, see the following link for just one example;
Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Aldehydes in Alcoholic Beverages Using a Cysteamine Derivatization Procedure

 

[Lukew]

Dan what's you thoughts on
Cas 62-75-9 Dimethylnitrosoamine

I have just listed the other chemicals as they are both listed on aics and as a prop 65.
So you are saying that many household products would contain Cas 123-91-1 1,4 dioxane. Your in the industry of making pressroom chemicals, at what trace levels are these chemicals in products, especially the dimethlynitrosoamine ?
I would call 0.1% a trace amount and I most certainly would call 0.001% a trace amount and it is still listed as a carcinogen at that trace level.

 

[Lukew]

Regards the MSDS that didn't include R45 R46. They don't have to have it as they are under the threshold level of 1%.

 

[Dan Roll]

62-75-9 Dimethylnitrosoamine can be produced by reactions between some things and nitrites, so you could find a small amount of dimethylnitrosoamine in any aqueous media containing nitrite salts and anything that might react with them. It seems this reaction takes place naturally in many circumstances that would lead to small amounts of dimethylnitrosoamine appearing in many foods or beverages. I have no idea where trace amounts in fountain solutions would be coming from, unless the fountain solution was to contain nitrite salts, which would be unusual.

I have in front of me a MSDS for a polyoxyethylene oleyl ether surfactant
(not a fountain solution ingredient, it is for stabilizing oil/water emulsions) that lists 1,4 Dioxane on it's CoA at maximum content 10ppm. In percentage that would be 0.00001, what I would consider a trace amount. When you consider a product may only contain, to choose an easy number to use, five percent of a surfactant of this type, the product would then contain 5% of 0.00001, or 0.0000005, or stated another way, five parts per ten million.

Anything containing anything made from ethylene, could contain trace amounts of dioxane.

 

[Green Printer]

Green Printer, I'm not aware of the guidelines for the food & pharmaceutical packaging printing,as I have only ever worked in the commercial sheet-fed sector. Do you have any links that I could view?

I have been in touch with AICS Australia & Work safe Australia in regards to two specific risk phrases R45 / R46 that they list for certain CAS# that are found in pressroom chemicals. I've informed them that these two risk phrases are being left of nearly all MSDS that we have received.
Two manufacturer's have been notified, but I'm yet to hear back from them, as to a reason why the two risk phrases are not on the MSDS.

I will be contacting both companies next week & if there isn't a legit reason for the this, according to work safe Australia they are to be contacted and a formal complaint has to be lodged.

So far there has only been one chemical manufacturer that although they haven't listed the R45/R46 they have it written in the MSDS and alerts you to the possible Carcinogen & mutagenic on their MSDS.

The weird thing is a lot of the MSDS from multiple manufacturer's are done through the same company "Chemwatch" So why the discrepancy?

If it is correct and there are no threshold rules that would allow them to leave the R45/R46 off the MSDS then I will gather as many MSDS from multiple manufacturers and lodge it with work safe Australia.

Full disclosure is needed, for too long these multinational companies have hidden behind their disclaimer's & it's time it comes to an end.

Lukew

The packaging side is very tight lipped. There is an abundance of technology that is proprietary and not available on the open market. The only thing similar between commercial and packaging is the equipment.

 

[Lukew]

I guess the large print packaging companies are owned by the paper companies/mills or vice versa so there would be a lot at stake, and any technology that sets them apart from the other would be guarded.
Would this mean that some of the multinational press chemical manufacturers have developed products that work that do not contain a lot of the nasty chemicals in them, but "proprietary" withholds them from the general marketplace.

 

[Lukew]

Why ow why does one bother.
Here I am trying to get away from nasty chemicals, low flash chemicals, IPA. to create a safer workplace, yet the printer next to me chooses to use on his machine:
Blanket wash with a -1 C flash point.
Roller Wash containing aromatic solvents 35 C flash point
Strong harmful deglazes

 

[Green Printer]

Why ow why does one bother.
Here I am trying to get away from nasty chemicals, low flash chemicals, IPA. to create a safer workplace, yet the printer next to me chooses to use on his machine:
Blanket wash with a -1 C flash point.
Roller Wash containing aromatic solvents 35 C flash point
Strong harmful deglazes

Who is the manager. Does he let each pressman use whatever they want? I feel sorry for you having to work in such a place.

 

[Lukew]

Who is the manager. Does he let each pressman use whatever they want? I feel sorry for you having to work in such a place.

We are in a fortunate & unfortunate position.. The fortunate is within reason us as the printer get to choose what products we use. The unfortunate is the obvious thats written above.

I am trying to talk this printer out of using such a product, insisting that all it will take is an extra wipe of the blanket to wipe of a high flash wash.
He insists he won't change and that using a product that doesn't dry straight away will cause contamination issues..

Bullshit! Lazy is the word that springs to mind.

 

[RGPW17100]

We are in a fortunate & unfortunate position.. The fortunate is within reason us as the printer get to choose what products we use. The unfortunate is the obvious thats written above.

I am trying to talk this printer out of using such a product, insisting that all it will take is an extra wipe of the blanket to wipe of a high flash wash.
He insists he won't change and that using a product that doesn't dry straight away will cause contamination issues..

Bullshit! Lazy is the word that springs to mind.

There are a lot of unemployed people out there that could be more qualified then your press operator. We had the same issue at the shop I managed and my goal was to remove deglazer from our shop. It took two years and I had to prove a lot of things like paste deglazers work, A second wipe with a rag with water works better at cutting calcium ( deglazers and most press washes without water will not touch this stuff.) During this period till recently I noticed one of the employees displaying painters syndrome. This operator like yours refused to quit using powerful deglazers and used the stuff as blanket washes and roller wash (not to mention the damage to the rollers). Not only did this operator uses these supplies in excess she never used gloves handling it. I noticed memory issues, slowed reaction times and some of the most messed up hands I have ever seen.

If you have a plan to make something safer that is not excessively expensive and can not get subordinates on board either you need to get rid of the employee and get your management staff to support you or you should try looking for a safer place to work. If anyone at your work gets sick you are liable. If you are constantly looking at ways to make your shop safer and document it you stand a better chance in court when someone sues you because of medical reasons.

 

[Lukew]

There are a lot of unemployed people out there that could be more qualified then your press operator. We had the same issue at the shop I managed and my goal was to remove deglazer from our shop. It took two years and I had to prove a lot of things like paste deglazers work, A second wipe with a rag with water works better at cutting calcium ( deglazers and most press washes without water will not touch this stuff.) During this period till recently I noticed one of the employees displaying painters syndrome. This operator like yours refused to quit using powerful deglazers and used the stuff as blanket washes and roller wash (not to mention the damage to the rollers). Not only did this operator uses these supplies in excess she never used gloves handling it. I noticed memory issues, slowed reaction times and some of the most messed up hands I have ever seen.

If you have a plan to make something safer that is not excessively expensive and can not get subordinates on board either you need to get rid of the employee and get your management staff to support you or you should try looking for a safer place to work. If anyone at your work gets sick you are liable. If you are constantly looking at ways to make your shop safer and document it you stand a better chance in court when someone sues you because of medical reasons.

I'm not the shop owner, I am one of the printers. I can only do so much as obviously it's up to management or owners to make the final call as to if a product is not allowed in the shop.
It will be interesting when we are audited for our SGP again and I point out to the auditors the -1 c flash wash that's being used everyday by the other printer.. "Didn't realise that a wash that contains 51% aramatics / 49% toluene was environmental"
jk.

 

[Sustainable]

I'm not the shop owner, I am one of the printers. I can only do so much as obviously it's up to management or owners to make the final call as to if a product is not allowed in the shop.
It will be interesting when we are audited for our SGP again and I point out to the auditors the -1 c flash wash that's being used everyday by the other printer.. "Didn't realise that a wash that contains 51% aramatics / 49% toluene was environmental"
jk.

With everything you have mentioned your working in a SGP certified facility?

 

[Lukew]

Common sense prevails. That particular Quick clean solvent is no longer to be used in the factory again.
I printed out the list of risk phrases and some medical info and presented it to the production manager.
It seems writing speaks louder then words.
The health implications from this particular product is frightening and once management realised that it's not just the press guy using it that's effected, but also everyone in the building the correct outcome was achieved.

Sustainable - SGP as far as I'm concerned is "smoke & mirrors" and should come before the relevant authorities for Green washing.