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

N-propyl alcohol versus Isopropanol alcohol

This discussion went quiet all of the sudden.
No more input from industry experts?

I would like to know if the biocides & fungicides used in fountain solutions for food/pharmaceutical packaging are the same as the ones used for fountain solutions that covers the commercial printing sector?
If not, why not?

I would also like to know why if I purchase my consumables & ink from the majority of manufacturers I need to then also purchase another line of products from them to use if/when we are to print any food packaging?
 
Alois,
Another little dig from you, wearing a little thin now though I must say.

The reference to industry experts was pointed towards chemical & ink manufacturers, The one's who have the full info, other then the somewhat miss guided MSDS that float around the industry that the humble operator gets to see.

Perhaps yourself, someone who has had a lengthy career in print can answer the above & would care to share?
 
No !

No !

Lukew,


No - no, No - far from it, may be a Comment but not a Dig

You spend a lot of time trawling for information and then asking questions, which is a credit to you


Regards, Alois
 
Last edited:
Lukew asked "I would like to know if the biocides & fungicides used in fountain solutions for food/pharmaceutical packaging are the same as the ones used for fountain solutions that covers the commercial printing sector?
If not, why not?

I would also like to know why if I purchase my consumables & ink from the majority of manufacturers I need to then also purchase another line of products from them to use if/when we are to print any food packaging?"

Reminds me of my early days at Anchor when our salesmen would complain we did not have a fountain solution approved for use in food contact applications like one of our competitors had. Being gullible, I spent years looking for someone at the FDA and other branches of government who could tell me what was involved in receiving such approval. Eventually an exasperated lady at the FDA told me there was no such approval and anyone claiming to have such approval was pulling a fast one. Then I found out what was happening. We purchased a trailer load of what we referred to then as disposable totes (we were using much more robust and expensive totes back then, can't justify them now) and all of them arrived with a green sticker proclaiming they were approved for use in food contact. Our competitor was just leaving these labels on in, what turned out to be the correct, hopes the printer would assume the sticker referred to the container's contents rather than the container itself.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere about product and ingredient revelation, and I think I must draw it here. I am only a minority partner in the company I work for now and cannot in good faith to my partners and employees reveal too much of our methods and formulations as they represent almost all of our companies value.
 
Dan,
Not sure if I've interpreted it wrong, but your implying there is no such laws concerning chemicals / inks for food packaging?

Perhaps the EU is different, and the laws in USA may represent what you have said.
I know for one here the ink used for food packaging needs to be a special low migration series & the same goes for the chemicals on the press. Both Flint/varn, Sun chemical have PDF's regarding the products they have and implementation that passes the EU guidelines.

It may be that print firms doing small amounts of food packaging don't bother following any guidelines & still utilise their standard inks & chemistry.
 
I have reviewed a few fountain solutions promoted as low migration and I admit to having no idea how this alleged property was determined for any of them. One contained a significant amount of IPA, another contained heavy metal salts, all contained glycol and glycol ethers. Could someone point me to some documentation on what constitutes 'low migration' for fountain solution?
 
Taken from page 14 referencing to the use of IPA in low migration fountain solutions.
Other consumables for ‘low migration’ packaging printing need to be considered, including:
• Fountain solutions
• Press washes
Fountain solution concentrates are used at 2.5-5% in the fountain and can often contain potential migrants such as:
• Wetting agents
• Alcohol replacements (for low IPA printing)
Your consumables supplier can provide guidance for and instruction on use of a suitable fount concentrate for low migration printing.
Note: Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) is a highly mobile potential migrant commonly used at 5-15%
in the damping solution fountain. IPA is also highly volatile (VOC) and is therefore unlikely
to be a persistent migrant in the print, even though levels could be high immediately after printing. Replacing it is often a high priority
for many printers, although this is not always simple. The use of fount concentrates with high alcohol replacement content should be avoided, as these may be ‘persistent’ migrants.

Link
http://www.totalgraphics.co.uk/downloads/packaging-printing-guide.pdf
 
Lukew, to quote the next paragraph from page 14;

"Note: Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) is a highly mobile
potential migrant commonly used at 5-15%
in the damping solution fountain. IPA is also
highly volatile (VOC) and is therefore unlikely
to be a persistent migrant in the print, even
though levels could be high immediately after
printing. Replacing it is often a high priority
for many printers, although this is not always
simple. The use of fount concentrates with
high alcohol replacement content should be
avoided, as these may be ‘persistent’ migrants."

This language is pretty vague; alcohol is bad, but OK because it is volatile although IPA replacement (whatever that might refer to) should be avoided as it "may" be persistent! Alcohol used at "5-15%" is fine, but a glycol ether at 0.41% is not? What are the standards for volatility? Why does almost every regulatory scheme from Europe support the use of alcohol in fountain solution? Since most packaging printing is coated, how does IPA evaporate through the coating which prevents its contact with air? As long as I have been selling fountain solution to the packaging industry I have never been faced with a complaint of any fountain solution ingredients ever contaminating anything anywhere. Maybe I was lucky, but usually I am the opposite and am almost always among the early confronters of any type of problem.
 
mmm what I think !

mmm what I think !

Gentlemen,

What I think is - "To alcohol! The cause of ..... and solution to .... all of life's problems"

- Matt Groening



Regards, Alois
 
With all of the ramifications involved for migration into products it would be very wise for you and your supplier to be completely aware of the financial responsibilities you are undertaking.

I wasn't aware or I didn't know that won't save you. Ignorance of the laws is not a defense.
 
"The migration limits also apply to migration from the printed plastic packaging, but the printing inks and coatings are not themselves directly covered."

"However, the technical annexes are not complete even after many years. The future status remains unclear such that very few packaging inks can be produced according to AP(2005)1 and the Resolution in its current form is widely regarded as unworkable."

"The Swiss Ordinance only applies to packaging materials for foodstuffs that are:
i) Manufactured in Switzerland, or
ii) Imported into Switzerland"

I could go on an on citing the opacities of these regulations. How can one be certain of complying with rules that are not complete, workable, or even directly addressed. I suppose ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how many printers can afford a legal research staff to investigate the activities of every entity which feels it has the domain and expertise to regulate this issue? I suspect there are a few 'connected' suppliers who can hook you up with what they will certify as compliant materials, but how would you know if you were being scammed?
 
Dan Roll said:
"The migration limits also apply to migration from the printed plastic packaging, but the printing inks and coatings are not themselves directly covered."

"However, the technical annexes are not complete even after many years. The future status remains unclear such that very few packaging inks can be produced according to AP(2005)1 and the Resolution in its current form is widely regarded as unworkable."

"The Swiss Ordinance only applies to packaging materials for foodstuffs that are:
i) Manufactured in Switzerland, or
ii) Imported into Switzerland"

I could go on an on citing the opacities of these regulations. How can one be certain of complying with rules that are not complete, workable, or even directly addressed. I suppose ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how many printers can afford a legal research staff to investigate the activities of every entity which feels it has the domain and expertise to regulate this issue? I suspect there are a few 'connected' suppliers who can hook you up with what they will certify as compliant materials, but how would you know if you were being scammed?
Click to expand...

Dan

Would you be able to do the paper work for compliant materials? You have been in the industry with some of the top suppliers for quite a few years with an amassed amount of experience.
With your comments on this thread it is obvious that you have done packaging plants and would have a wealth of knowledge on the paper work procedures needed for compliance.
 
Last edited:
I have some stats from the FDA.
In 2011 39,702,319 lbs of food were recalled due to
migration/contamination. American eat on an annual
basis approx 2,000 lbs of food or approx 5.5 lbs a day.
That means that 19,891 Americans food for 12 months
was recalled. Or about 992 semi loads of 40,000 pounds each.
This is just food it does not count pharmaceuticals, cosmetics
or medical products.
So if the FDA has no regs why so much food products are
recalled?
 
There is a PDF available where back in the early 90's migration testing of certain chemicals was done by the FDA in America for food packaged in microwave disposable packages .
I didn't post it as it was mainly to do with migration of chemicals used in manufacturing the actual wrapper, carton, microwave container etc.
Interestingly though, some of the chemicals they were testing are the same chemicals found in certain fountain solutions and press chemicals.
They were found to migrate, and one reason was due to the heat.
I guess this is why the EU have set a ppm detection level for their migration testing of print chemicals & ink.
 
It would be helpful whenever citing testing done by others, a link to the original source would be included. Just saying......
 
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