• Best Wishes to all for a Wonderful, Joyous & Beautiful Holiday Season, and a Joyful New Year!

N-propyl alcohol versus Isopropanol alcohol

Dan Roll said:

Pressmen that are afraid of the chemicals used in alcohol replacement products will find them in common household products and cleaners. The volumes of glycol ethers used in these products are modest and in the mixed solution, quite small. For the overly concerned, avoiding physical contact with these products just involves not touching the concentrates, the glycol ethers used are not volatile enough to be an inhalation hazzard unless you were to heat them to their boiling points.
Click to expand...

If you have a choice to use a safer product that performs better then most other products on the market, why would one continue to use a product that contains chemicals known to have the ability to cause health issues.
Glycols may not be volatile enough for high levels of evaporation but it sure has the ability to mist into the air along with the fine ink particles on a large format press running at high speed.
Walk into a pressroom running a fount high in glycols and you can smell it. If the odour is present then the chemical is airborne presenting a possible health risk.
Don't for one minute sit there and tell me this stuff isn't airborne around a press. We have a co-worker from another department who can't be near the press for extended periods of time due to skin allergy flare up & other issues caused by the airborne chemicals. Normal day to day living and in his department he is fine no skin issues.

Trying to justify the use of nasty chemicals within a fountain solution that an operator is around & breathing in the fumes for 38+ hours a week to a house hold cleaning product that is used with gloves on a very short timeframe and not on a frequent basis is a little obscure.

That's similar to the time I had a manufacturer justifying the chemical in his roller wash his words - "It's a safe chemical it's the same chemical they use in fly spray, and fly spray can be sprayed all over the house and persons without issue".

Below is a fount similar to what many others would be using with the following health ratings
Toxicity = Moderate
Body contact = Moderate
Reactivity = moderate
Chronic = High
http://www.hurst.com.au/wp-content/...lutions/Hurst F303 Multi Fount Blue Nov10.pdf

If this style of fount is safe, then why do manufacturers of this type of fount offer a separate line of fountain solutions for the food & pharmaceutical packaging sector. If its safe then migration shouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Lukew,

I am not attempting to justify anything. I have formulated fountain solutions without glycols or glycol ethers but have had trouble getting anyone to buy them. Back in 1992 I formulated a product called FST that generated some sales, but after some initial success sales drifted off to nothing after a few years. While this was happening my more conventional products were selling hundreds of thousands of gallons a year. In the states, fountain solutions containing so much glycol ether they can not support any gum content are increasingly popular despite being more expensive than more conventional formulations. I currently sell a variety of products that only contain the 'safer' propylene glycols and solvents, but the bulk of the fountain solution we sell does not fall into this category. Hardly anyone in the U.S. runs alcohol and the on-press performance of an alcohol free fountain solution is the main focus of customers when adopting a new product and competition for this business is fierce.
I do try to avoid selling products containing glycol ethers of any type to printers with spray dampening, but these customers have no hesitation to shift to some competitors product containing glycol ethers to save a penny or two.
While you seem focused on the glycol and glycol ether content of fountain solution products, have you considered all these products contain potent biocides intended to prevent fungus and bacteria growth? These ingredients are far more likely to be irritants to the press operators and bystanders than glycols or glycol ethers. The only time I put on my gloves and goggles is when handling these ingredients (well, I don't always wear my goggles and gloves, but I seriously wash my hands after adding biocide to a batch).
 
Green Printer,

No, performance is always the primary issue, then price. Fountain solution is often sold due to being able to solve a particular problem a printer is having at the moment, or by being more compatable with another consumable a customer uses than the solution they are using.
That said, in the U.S. newspaper fountain solutions have been pushed to the point many customers will only consider a product that runs at one ounce per gallon and sells at a similar price to those that run at two or three ounces per gallon. This is not a good idea usually, as the metering devices most newspapers are equipped with are not accurate enough to mix a one ounce per gallon.
Sheetfed and commercial web fountain solutions often provide so much value that price is not really an issue, but many companies do not let the users of the products participate in the product selection and purchasing agents believe all fountain solutions are the same and do buy them on price. One major supplier (not where I do, or did, work) got around this by low balling the price per gallon and reporting to corporate the dosage was three ounces per gallon, while the actual consumption was seven ounces per gallon.
You get what you pay for and quality fountain solution ingredients are expensive. Where I work now, we keep the overhead low in order to keep the money in the product.
 
Dan, I don't mean to harp on about the glycols. Of course all the chemicals that make up a product need to be taken into consideration.
I simply don't see the need to use a product that contains a level 3 health warning for chronic effects when I can use a product that carries the basic level 1 warning.

For instance we had a supplier drop in their ink and varnish for us to trial, the cans had a health notice on them "may cause genetic defects" May cause lung damage through inhalation of mist" "may cause birth defects"
Wear rubber gloves, suitable eye protection and wash hands thoroughly after use.
Why would someone choose to use such a product when there is safer alternatives.
 
These new rules for California negates most of this post for those in Californian and will eventually work their way east.

The last link "Toxic information" is a valuable resource. Send the link to your supplier. When questions arise you and your supplier will have the same resources.


Safer Consumer Products Regulations

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCP/upload/Informational_Candidate_Chemicals_List_10-18-13.pdf

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCP/upload/Group-Member-Candidate-Chemicals-List.pdf

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCP/upload/Informational_Initial_Candidate-Chemicals-List_10-18-13.pdf

Toxic information clearing house http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCP/TIC.cfm
 
Last edited:
page 60 of the second document has Glycol ethers
page 23 of the second document aromatic hydrocarbons
these list also have the authoritative source of the information


third document page 21 mineral oils
 
Last edited:
The listing of glycol ethers in the "INFORMATIONAL LIST OF CANDIDATE CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS SEPTEMBER 26, 2013" only specifies some pretty exotic and toxic products, unlikely to finds their way into fountain solutions or washes. The ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, once used in alcohol substitutes (long before my time) is no longer available due to its toxicity. The reference to 'Respiratory Tox' for glycol ethers in general could not possibly apply to all of the myriad varieties of glycol ether products not listed equally. These toxicity warnings, in any event, are specific to breathing the vapor, which requires heating the product. This is common in plating and some other industrial applications but does not apply to spraying room temperature glass cleaner on your windows or standing next to a printing press not equipped with spray dampening. Curiously, the FOGRA people have no problem at all with glycol ethers in spray dampening newspaper presses, something even I try to avoid (I also try to avoid spray dampening, but that is another story).
 
Eric, I do not think it would be a good idea for me to rant about spray and centrifugal dampeners as many people view them as good and several companies still make and sell them.

Green Printer, your question "What about aromatic hydrocarbons?" is a bit vague, but I will try and answer. Aromatic hydrocarbons are (depending on the one you choose, of course) strong solvents and inexpensive. Usually used blended with milder solvents to make press wash. Non-aromatics are available, but many pressmen consider them to be too weak to use alone. The FOGRA approved wash falls in this category.
 
http://www.fujifilm.ca/shared/bin/ANCH20049E.pdf
Ingredient Information:
Chronic overexposure to dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether in high concentrations has caused minor kidney damage in laboratory animals. Ethylene glycol has caused fetal malformations and fetotoxicity at doses producing no maternal toxicity. Exposure to tetrapotassium pyrophosphate may cause kidney damage.
Effects of Chronic Exposure:
May cause central nervous system effects.

This fount sounds safe for the big newspaper guys to use, jk.

http://www.hurst.com.au/wp-content/uploads/msds/bw-flam/Hurst 127 UV Wash Nov09.pdf
Nice safe UV roller was, jk Don't worry about the possible fertility effects, it will wash up well, jk

http://www.hurst.com.au/wp-content/uploads/msds/bw-non-flam/Hurst 122 Multi UV Wash Nov09.pdf
Another safe UV wash, Don't mind the fact they need to list it may cause cancer. Good to know the possibility is always there.
Read the fine print in the MSDS
There is ample evidence that this material can be regarded as being able to cause cancer in humans based on experiments and other information" This changes the meaning of "MAY"
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) and its metabolite butoxyacetic acid are haemolytic agents, causing red blood cell destruction. This sounds great, Feel sorry for who ever chooses to use such a product on a full time basis.

Actually why would someone utilise products that 7 pages of health effects caused by the chemicals within the product? And more to the point why would a print chemical manufacturer make products like this ? Perhaps the raw material is cheap and easy to source. The technology has been around for years and it's simple for their chemists to develop.
 
Last edited:
Dan,
Have you performed any life cycle studies on the environmental impact the chemicals used within your products have ?

Interested to hear if this is an important factor when manufacturers are developing new products.
 
Lukew,

I hope you do not hold me respnsible for every formula Fuji ever came up with. The Prime Time series were formulated before the mania for spray dampening hit the newspapaper market, by someone other than myself. By the way, that particular formula was (and may still be) very popular.

Your oft expressed point is why would anyone buy or use these products, obviously some people do want to buy or use them as these types of products represent the bulk of the sales of just about every pressroom consumables company in the world. The companies specializing in what they advertize as 'safe' products are small concerns with limited sales. Are suppliers somehow accountable for protecting their customers from your interpretation of what is safe and what isn't?

As for life cycle studies, I am always (and always have been) evaluating raw materials and their combinations with an eye towards making the products 'safer' to use and have reduced the volumes of those I haven't been able to eliminate to levels below what I used to use. However, a product that doesn't perform it's function better than all of its competitors doesn't stay on press long in the states, customers are who drive what is going to be sold and used. California's attempts to dictate to businesses what they can and can not do, and tax them if they do not comply, has reduced the number of major printers in the state significantly.

I hope you ride a horse, as the gasoline or diesel fuel your vehicle uses, or the toxins produced by the production of electricity for your Volt, are a lot worse for your health and the environment than what poor printers consume.
 
The market excepts what they are feed.
The majority of manufacturers have pursued the line of hydrocarbon washes, solvent style founts and various other similar products. Perhaps little effort has been put in via chemists to truly look at not just each consumable own it's own, but as a whole and their interaction with each other.

I'm not sure if the industry is stubborn but for instance I ring around the various ink companies here seeking a specific ink, only to be greeted with no we don't have, and no it won't work.
Surprisingly the ink manufacturers I have called have all agree'd regards the notion that various chemicals within particular fountain solutions can have a negative impact on the inks ability to perform as it was intended, but not one in this country has been willing to alter the chemical structure of an ink to what I was asking for. Won't work, Not interested, case closed.
 
Dan Roll said:
Lukew,


However, a product that doesn't perform it's function better than all of its competitors doesn't stay on press long in the states, customers are who drive what is going to be sold and used. California's attempts to dictate to businesses what they can and can not do, and tax them if they do not comply, has reduced the number of major printers in the state significantly.
.
Click to expand...

Dan

The major printers in California who adapted and changed are thriving while those who did not are disappearing. The small printers are flying under the radar.
 
Dan Roll said:
Lukew,

I am not attempting to justify anything. I have formulated fountain solutions without glycols or glycol ethers but have had trouble getting anyone to buy them. Back in 1992 I formulated a product called FST that generated some sales, but after some initial success sales drifted off to nothing after a few years. While this was happening my more conventional products were selling hundreds of thousands of gallons a year. In the states, fountain solutions containing so much glycol ether they can not support any gum content are increasingly popular despite being more expensive than more conventional formulations. I currently sell a variety of products that only contain the 'safer' propylene glycols and solvents, but the bulk of the fountain solution we sell does not fall into this category. Hardly anyone in the U.S. runs alcohol and the on-press performance of an alcohol free fountain solution is the main focus of customers when adopting a new product and competition for this business is fierce.
I do try to avoid selling products containing glycol ethers of any type to printers with spray dampening, but these customers have no hesitation to shift to some competitors product containing glycol ethers to save a penny or two.
While you seem focused on the glycol and glycol ether content of fountain solution products, have you considered all these products contain potent biocides intended to prevent fungus and bacteria growth? These ingredients are far more likely to be irritants to the press operators and bystanders than glycols or glycol ethers. The only time I put on my gloves and goggles is when handling these ingredients (well, I don't always wear my goggles and gloves, but I seriously wash my hands after adding biocide to a batch).
Click to expand...


Points to ponder

Biocides/Fungicides are approx 5 - 15% active strength from the actual chemical manufacturer. A fountain solution would add this at about .5 to .7% in their concentrate. We the printer now mix the concentrate at 3% in water so your comment does not add up.

An ethylene glycol ether from the chemical manufacturer is 95 to
100% pure with this now added at 5 to 12% in the fountain concentrate and now we the printer mix at
3% in water, do the math in ppm exposure, again your comment does not add up.

The biocide/fungicide is slightly stronger than shampoo and far less then bleach (in the press ready solutions).

I am sure there are different biocides-fungicides used. I am told the one used in our fountain solution continually
passes FDA guidelines and migration testing in printed material.

Last thing to think about, what is the content of the alcohol sub, or second step product that is added to the
fountain solution. What is the ppm of the fountain solution and alcohol sub in combination with ethylene
glycol ethers?
 
Alcohol and its perils !

Alcohol and its perils !

Gentlemen,


A PDF - a little diversion



Regards, Alois
 

Attachments

  • Gentlemen and Alcohol PDF v # 1.pdf
    138.1 KB · Views: 318
You must log in or register to reply here.

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…….

   
Back
Top