German Presses and Fogra

[UGS]

Not to sound too negative on the Fogra approved products, but they are more of a business approval than much beyond that point. Sure they are products that are tested and approved by the manufacturers not to do harm to OEM equipment, but beyond that they are a sales tool. The washes are approved mainly based on flashpoint and vapor pressure and the manufacturer needs to ensure that the wash isn't going to dryout the seals in the washup unit ect.

Chemical companies have to submit a wash for Fogra approval, and pay an annual fee to use that approval. This is much less costly than a Baldwin approved product. Baldwin charges a higher fee for their approvals. Also most of the press manufacturers are attempting to promote their own pressroom consumable programs to provide ongoing revenue streams for their company. KBA and Man Roland are two recent examples and have now made additional approved product list that go beyond Fogra approval. If you will notice almost all of these companies are european. Kinda funny huh?

Most major brands of wash and fountain solutions are just fine in your press. We sell both approved washes and then less expensive washes of which many are the same identical wash, but without the approval. You pay extra in the price of your wash for the Fogra or Baldwin approval. Hope this helps.

 

[keldrewett]

If a product is OK to use on any equipment there should be no cost for "special approval"
This doesn't happen in other industries only ours.....

 

[Green Printer]

It has been 18 months and no response or rebuttal.

I quess the matter stands as is.

 

[BacoUK]

It's a bit unfair to even suggest that H'berg, manroland and KBA are in any kind of cartel regarding pressroom chemicals. These are the three biggest manufacturers of printing presses in the world and sadly the US like the UK (my homeland) do not have products to compete against the German's. Anyone who watched what happened to their home motorcyle and / or the automobile industry is fully aware what German and Japanese engineery and quality is all about.

These companies simply make great presses (and may or may not sell chemicals under private label as a side-line) but there are a similar number of internationl chemical supplies Flint, Sun Chemical, Fuji and Huber spring to mind who also have a huge market share - but again that does not make them a cartel - as there are a number of other chemical manufactures who have Fogra approval - my company included.

Also there are dozens / hundreds of other suppliers around the world who make products of varying degress of quality who are not "approved", but probably could be if they were to join 'the Fogra club' or sourced the best surfactants and additives. The interesting thing is that China is now a major manufacturer - and will expand, just look at the CTP plate growth - and one of the first thing they ask from partners like us 'is it Fogra approved'?

Fogra is an idependent organisation so charges for the extensive testing it does on pressroom chemicals. I am sure there are products out there that could meet these standards, but some manufacturers / countries seem to have an strange isolationist attitude, as a result the biggest press companies say 'if it is not approved by Fogra, then we cannot guarantee it will not harm our presses so your warranty is invalidated'.

Let's be realistic, without this sort of threshold there would be all sorts of 'insurance' claims, and the press manufacturers do not have the time / money to test every jerry-can of liquid mixed in a bucket with a stick.

The 'problem' appears to be that the next group of press manufacturers from Japan, eg Komori, Ryobi, and Mitzi apprear to not want to 'play' the Fogra game, perhaps for nationalistic reason (?) but in the 'real world' we find that 'Fogra Approved' is what their technicians recommend.

With regards to Californian-style legislation it's 'no big deal' for the big international manufactures to meet those standards, they are obviously doing it, the 'problem' however for many companies is the high cost of insurance to cover all the what ifs in a very letigeous world.

 

[Francois]

All about making more money

 

[davenicho1]

Are you any clearer on your question yet as i see no one has replied?

Regards

Dave

 

[Francois]

You have to remember that FOGRA is a German based research institute that is well respected in Europe and beyond. It is therefore not a coincidence that European press manufacturers, particularly Heidelberg, manroland, and KBA support products based on FOGRA standards. There is no conspiracy of sort, rather a need to protect the manufactures against misused or misunderstood products. If printing companies had a professional chemist on staff, it would be a non issue since the person would probably qualify many other pressroom products based on merit and chemical properties. Since pressroom personnel is ignorant (etymologically speaking) to the fundamental properties of their products, they must relay on companies or institutions like FOGRA to tell them what is good or not. Of course they are a business too, and they have to make money in order to pay their techs and chemists. We sell pressroom products and feel safer selling them as a vendor because then products have a seal of approval that we could not otherwise provide.

Control Graphics USA |

 

[Green Printer]

You have to remember that FOGRA is a German based research institute that is well respected in Europe and beyond. It is therefore not a coincidence that European press manufacturers, particularly Heidelberg, manroland, and KBA support products based on FOGRA standards. There is no conspiracy of sort, rather a need to protect the manufactures against misused or misunderstood products. If printing companies had a professional chemist on staff, it would be a non issue since the person would probably qualify many other pressroom products based on merit and chemical properties. Since pressroom personnel is ignorant (etymologically speaking) to the fundamental properties of their products, they must relay on companies or institutions like FOGRA to tell them what is good or not. Of course they are a business too, and they have to make money in order to pay their techs and chemists. We sell pressroom products and feel safer selling them as a vendor because then products have a seal of approval that we could not otherwise provide.

Control Graphics USA |

The problem is misused and misunderstood with chemist that don't understand along with giving them the formula that they say they will keep secret. If you must tell the formula and then explain to the chemist how it works you have just given away your livelihood.
The press manufactures will give a waiver on some of the non-Forga approved chemistry. In some parts of the world new presses will not be bought without the waiver.
I have been using NON-FORGA certified products for over 20 years. Our shop is clean and my machinery did not dissolve into a pile of rusted bolts and liquid rubber. We meet or exceed every environmental regulation for the printing industry anywhere in the world.
It has been 4 years since this thread was started. Nothing has change except for those who have bought new presses and received the chemistry waiver.
With the waiver available it nullifies Fogra significance in press room chemistry and transforms it into a licensing fee.

 

[Green Printer]

Francois stated that printers are ignorant on the proper chemicals to use in printing and that Fogra testing and final approval by the machine manufacturer will protect us. Great, I have a question for printers that are following this discussion;

How many seals have you replaced on Technotrans fountain solution proportioning systems with Fogra approved fountain solutions?
How many seals have you replaced on Baldwin fountain solution proportioning systems with Fogra approved fountain solutions?
How many packaging printers have passed Headspace-GC-MS analysis for food, pharmaceutical, medical, and cosmetic packaging and label printing with Fogra approved chemicals?
How many packaging printers have passed Purge & Trap-Thermal Desorption-GC-MS analysis with Fogra approved chemicals?
How many packaging printers have passed Sensory evaluation with Fogra approved chemicals?
How many printers have passed Migration testing analysis with Fogra approved chemicals?
Now for the real question; So now we have a rejection for 2.5 million pie boxes and pie's, will Fogra be there to insist that their test criteria should be paramount to product health in packaging? Will Fogra be in court to insist they are the end of the line for knowledge served up in the Fogra-Grail of vast knowledge in print manufacturing? Bottom line is if it stinks, has regulated toxins (defined by U.S. laws), has VOC's and must be used on German equipment then the equipment manufacturers must have a clear warning: DO NOT PURCHASE THIS EQUIPMENT FOR FOOD, PHARMACEUTICAL, MEDICAL, OR COSMETIC PACKAGING OR LABEL PRINTING DUE TO EQUIPMENT CHEMICAL CERTIFICATIONS THAT MAY NOT PASS OR COMPLY WITH SAFETY AND HEALTH TESTING CRITERIA.
USE OF APPROVED FOGRA CHEMICALS COULD NEGATE A DEFENSIBLE POSITION IN A COURT OF LAW.
Problem solved, now we all know what we are purchasing.

 

[Green Printer]

We are now at 5 years and 7 months Fogra has not said anything.

The following quote was made by Dr. Wolfgang Rauh February 20, 2008


"Here are some more information about the Fogra tests of chemicals directly from Fogra.

The main idea of the Fogra tests comes from investigations into the health and safety aspects of press room chemicals. In the early 90s we found a lot of substances in press room chemicals which had a high risk to the health and safety of printers. Together with the German Berufsgenossenschaft Druck (The German institution for statutory accident insurance and prevention in the printing and paper processing industry) we looked at possibilities of bannig these dangerous chemicals from the press rooms.

As a result of these activities, the press manufacturers and Fogra installed the certification process at Fogra. If you use certified press room chemicals you can be sure that you use chemicals which are of minimized risk to the health and safety of your printers and the environment and which also protect your presses from damages.

The system is open to everybody all over the world. Every manufacturer of pressroom chemicals can send us his products. If he fails some test criteria we will help him to fulfil the criteria in the next step so that he will still have a chance to get his (high-performing) product on our and the press manufacturers list of recommended chemicals.

If you have further questions please contact us directly.


Dr. Wolfgang Rauh

Head of the environment and chemistry department
Fogra Institut
[email protected]"


The following is an extremely important section of the quote.

"As a result of these activities, the press manufacturers and Fogra installed the certification process at Fogra. If you use certified press room chemicals you can be sure that you use chemicals which are of minimized risk to the health and safety of your printers and the environment and which also protect your presses from damages."


Many certified Fogra products still contain benzene, cumene, voc's of over 85%, petrolium naptha with many other reportable chemicals. Nothing has changed iin over 5 years. Who do you trust?


Green Printer

 

[Lukew]

We've always had Japanese manufactured machines so there has been no hard sell by the vendors for a must use fogra certified chemicals.
It still hasn't stopped them using it in their sales pitch though "It's fogra approved so there will be no corrosion issues to the press"
Interesting when the Saphira rep was in I questioned regarding a bio wash. His reply was Saphira had developed one but it was not fogra approved yet so they don't stock it.

A lot of the chemicals in fogra approved products can still deteriorate rollers fairly rapidly, so is this not a criteria in the fogra testing?

There's fountain solutions pre mixed with NPA to be used at a rate of 15% alcohol plus other nasties in the fount that are fogra approved. If health & safety is a criteria how do such products pass?

 

[Dan Roll]

The fountain solution dispersed in IPA, sold by a South African company sails through FOGRA's mass loss testing due to the high alcohol content suppressing most galvanic activity. Many European fountain solutions contain IPA or ethanol as ingredients in place of the glycol ethers used in North American products. This is primarily due to flammability regulations in the US requiring any product containing more than one percent flammable material be red labeled as flammable, while in Germany, products containing as much as fifteen percent alcohol by volume are sold without restriction. These products also enjoy a built in advantage in FOGRA's mass loss testing. Safety is not really a concern of FOGRA, they only really certify that products have met their criteria and have passed their tests (and that the fee has been paid).

 

[Lukew]

The fountain solution dispersed in IPA, sold by a South African company sails through FOGRA's mass loss testing due to the high alcohol content suppressing most galvanic activity. Many European fountain solutions contain IPA or ethanol as ingredients in place of the glycol ethers used in North American products. This is primarily due to flammability regulations in the US requiring any product containing more than one percent flammable material be red labeled as flammable, while in Germany, products containing as much as fifteen percent alcohol by volume are sold without restriction. These products also enjoy a built in advantage in FOGRA's mass loss testing. Safety is not really a concern of FOGRA, they only really certify that products have met their criteria and have passed their tests (and that the fee has been paid).

Interesting....
Here in our country a product does not have to carry a red label flash/fire sticker if the flashpoint is above 60 deg Celsius.
There are at least five products on the market here that are similar to the south African manufactured fount.

I still can't understand how several of these founts can be given a fogra certificate, when fogra only approves them if the operating PH is above PH 6.5.
Considering they are PH4.8 - PH5.2 when mixed as per instructions, I fail to see what relevance the fogra certificate has.

 

[Dan Roll]

Lukew,
This is quoted directly from the FOGRA test specifications for fountain solutions;
"1. Preconditions of the standard test
a) Limits for pH and electrical conductivity of the ready to use fountain solution · Stabilisation of the pH value in the range of 5,0 ± 0,2 to 9,0 ± 0,2. · The conductivity of the fresh fountain solution is limited to 1500 μS/cm (for Heatset and Coldset presses) and 1700 μS/cm (for sheetfed presses) above the conductivity of the water which is used to prepare it. b) Limits for corrosive ions in the ready to use fountain solution Halogenides esp. Chlorides and bromides < 25 mg/l Sulfates < 50 mg/l Nitrates < 20 mg/l"

The pH restriction of "5,0 ± 0,2 to 9,0 ± 0,2" is mostly to accommodate newspaper printers, some of whom run alkaline fountain solutions (most of these have pH's higher than 9 however).

The mass-loss test performed by FOGRA only measures the potential for galvanic corrosion, accurately defined by Wikipedea as "an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially to another when both metals are in electrical contact and immersed in an electrolyte". Many fountain solutions passing this test are actually pretty corrosive to steel and other metals commonly found on presses. One of the tests I am fond of is placing a drop of mixed fountain solution onto a freshly sanded mild steel plate and watching what happens. Many FOGRA approved products perform poorly in this test while some products FOGRA would not approve do pretty well.

Many of the corrosion complaints FOGRA was established to address were galvanic in nature (the corrosion of steel under ceramic coatings, the damage done to nickel plated cylinders in direct contact with anodized aluminum plates) so the tests they perform do provide some level of assurance to the press manufacturers, but I think the whole "FOGRA Approved" concept has been oversold and, to some extent, miss-represented.

 

[Dan Roll]

I neglected to point out in the previous post that many (most actually) traditional American fountain solutions used, or still use, nitrates and sulfates as ingredients, primarily magnesium nitrate, often present in the mixed solution at levels exceeding 2000 mg/l, one hundred times the limit specified by FOGRA. Many millions of gallons of these formulas were consumed over the years without complaint (about corrosion anyway) by printers of all types. The limits placed on sulfates (salts of sulfuric acid like sodium sulfate, for example) and nitrates (magnesium nitrate, ammonium nitrate, etc) and the restrictions on other desensitizing ingredients implied by the mass loss test result in fountain solutions lacking in desensitizing power.
The potential for galvanic corrosion has a direct relationship to the conductivity of the electrolyte (fountain solution), hence the limits set by FOGRA on maximum allowable conductivity. With this limit on the amount of desensitizing ingredients used (these are mostly ionic, therefore conductive, therefore part of the fountain solutions conductivity total) these ingredients should be chosen for their efficiency, but all of the efficient systems either are restricted by prohibition or restricted by the mass loss test, or both. This is why FOGRA approved fountain solutions are often characterized as 'weak'.

 

[Green Printer]

Fogra's only relevance is to Heidelberg and KBA in Germany and the conversation in this forum. Anywhere else in the world these press manufactures will sign a waver negating Fogra requirements.

 

[Lukew]

Was interesting reading Heidelbergs profi print tip booklet for reduced alcohol printing. It stated do not use any fountain solution manufactured in the USA on a European manufactured press. The reasons given were.
1) They are usually highly corrosive
2) The paper & ink is different in the USA.

Had to chuckle at this comment. As I'm sure the machines sent from Germany to the USA are no different to the machines sent to other area's in the world.
I guess the paper may differ but would think ink is not dramatically different.

 

[Dan Roll]

I used to possess a publication by Heidelberg (in English) about running IPA free promoting Substifix from Hostman Steinberg, but requiring the printer to invest in a RO system, a water hardening system, new pan rollers, and ceramic rollers to replace the chrome rollers. This must have been published in the mid 1990's and was targeted at the Australian/New Zealand market. I do not think anyone actually did this, and the intention of the publication struck me as more attempting to discourage IPA free printing than to promote it.

 

[Lukew]

Dan there are similar up to date Profi print tips from heidelberg in favour of IPA reduced printing instead of IPA free.

Excerpt taken from Heildelberg Profi print tip No.9. Printing with less alcohol.
Would printing without any alcohol at all yield additional benefits? Reducing the IPA concentration further does not usually yield any significant advantages. The addi- tional measures that have to be carried out to enable printing with- out alcohol can quickly offset the financial benefits of reducing IPA use. Moreover, when printing com- pletely without alcohol the press reacts much more sensitively to even the slightest changes or instability in individual process parameters. Environmental burdens are not re- duced much further, either, since VOC emissions are already drastically decreased by cutting the IPA con- centration to five percent.
Generally speaking, therefore, IPA-free printing cannot be recom- mended to every user. Depending on the type of print job involved and conditions at the print shop (water quality, pressroom climate, state of the press, etc.), however, stable IPA- free production may also be feasible.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I do not think anyone actually did this, and the intention of the publication struck me as more attempting to discourage IPA free printing than to promote it.

This is interesting. In the mid 1980's, the company I was working for started into running offset. They already were running gravure and flexo for their food packaging system. They started offset with IPA free printing with EB inks.

I have always been surprised that the IPA free issue is still being discussed but I have come to think that its continued use is related to the way it covers up problems in the process that have not been corrected.

I probably would not have gotten so interested in the density control problems of the press if it was not for the fact that we were running EB inks, which are reported to be more of a problem with ink water balance than conventional inks and that we were not allowed to use IPA, which also helps.

The culture of avoiding the effort to understand a problem by covering it up in the short term has not helped the industry in the long term to be more productive and efficient.