UV versus AQ - seeking your professional advice

[lmittler]

Hello everyone,

We are a tree service business that adopted a "green" program 2 years ago in which we plant a new tree for every tree that we remove.

Our marketing highlights our "green" effort and in the last 2 years we delivered about 600,000 4x6 postcards that talk about our program. Last season 1 person contacted us to say that our UV coated postcards cannot be recycled so our promotion of ourselves as "green" is inconsistent with the cards we deliver.

The postcards are based on our corporate logo which is a high gloss black background. We want to keep the glossy look as best we can. We would be willing to concede some sheen but matte isn't really an option.

I have tried to self-educate myself via the web about AQ versus UV versus varnish. UV is mostly described as being environmentally detrimental (can't be recycled) yet I found a blog that promoted "new UV technology" as being environmentally superior because it takes less energy to produce, the chemicals aren't solvent-based and less energy is needed in the curing process. But really this is mostly beyond my understanding and so I'm turning to you for your help.

This year we will be printing 800,000 postcards and I'd like to ask for your professional opinions on the following:

Is AQ coating a more environmentally friendly product than UV and why?
Can an item AQ coated be recycled?
Can any environmentally friendly product (whatever that may be) produce a high gloss finish?

Another other suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for letting me participate in your industry with these questions.

 

[Freeman A.Gain]

I think that this is one for the experts like "Gordo". He has all or most of the technical info on stuff like this. But, in my opinion and experience, UV coating & varnishes are more green than AQ and conventional varnishes because they contain no VOC's. No gases are released when they dry, because UV is cured via chemical transformation. UV & AQ can be recycled, in Canada at least. Some people get UV coating confused with lamination, because of it glossiness, which is less recyclable.

Hope this helps.

 

[gordo]

UV and EB inks and coatings do not present a problem for the paper recycling industry. In fact, mill trials conducted in 1992 by the Beloit Corporation showed that various levels of this waste can be incorporated into a mill’s standard furnish (blend) with no processing problems or detrimental effects on product quality.

UV and EB inks and coatings are easily repulpable (capable of being defibered) and can be recycled into tissue
and/or fine paper grades using commercially available equipment.

In fact California's Environmental Protection Agency, one of the strictest jurisdictions in the world, suggests UV as an environmentally friendly way to print as it releases no VOCs into the environment.

best, (no expert) gordo

 

[Joe Duffy]

best, (no expert) gordo

If not you, then who??

 

[TheProcessIStheproduct]

UV coating is NASTY stuff... not sure what is in it, but before it is cured it is really nasty stuff to work with, I would rather work with AQ any day and it is 95% water. But if you really want to be eco-safe, then don't use a clay coated stock with UV, use a 100% recycled stock like Rolland.

 

[sonic]

You can recycle UV but it's separated from normal waste by the recyclers. We get a lower amount per pound when it's recycled. I am willing to be that the "UV is not recyclable" statement originally was said to that person by a printers/salesman who didn't own a UV coater. They will say anything to diminish the competitive product. We recycle UV loose waste all of the time. I'm not a chemical expert but I believe that UV is a low/no VOC product vs AQ which has a higher amount VOCs.

However, with that said, I believe this question is less about recycling and more about marketing. It's completely true that your UV coated marketing doesn't give off the vibe that it's "green." To me, green marketing would be on a sheet that is unbleached, matte, un-coated and very earthy feel to it. Full color and glossy is kind of like Las Vegas to me. To me it says overindulgent and flashy, not planet conscientious and humble.

Just my 2 cents.

Hello everyone,

We are a tree service business that adopted a "green" program 2 years ago in which we plant a new tree for every tree that we remove.

Our marketing highlights our "green" effort and in the last 2 years we delivered about 600,000 4x6 postcards that talk about our program. Last season 1 person contacted us to say that our UV coated postcards cannot be recycled so our promotion of ourselves as "green" is inconsistent with the cards we deliver.

The postcards are based on our corporate logo which is a high gloss black background. We want to keep the glossy look as best we can. We would be willing to concede some sheen but matte isn't really an option.

I have tried to self-educate myself via the web about AQ versus UV versus varnish. UV is mostly described as being environmentally detrimental (can't be recycled) yet I found a blog that promoted "new UV technology" as being environmentally superior because it takes less energy to produce, the chemicals aren't solvent-based and less energy is needed in the curing process. But really this is mostly beyond my understanding and so I'm turning to you for your help.

This year we will be printing 800,000 postcards and I'd like to ask for your professional opinions on the following:

Is AQ coating a more environmentally friendly product than UV and why?
Can an item AQ coated be recycled?
Can any environmentally friendly product (whatever that may be) produce a high gloss finish?

Another other suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for letting me participate in your industry with these questions.

 

[gordo]

UV coating is NASTY stuff... not sure what is in it, but before it is cured it is really nasty stuff to work with, I would rather work with AQ any day and it is 95% water. But if you really want to be eco-safe, then don't use a clay coated stock with UV, use a 100% recycled stock like Rolland.

Aqueous coatings are actually about 40% solids (resins) the rest is solvents (hydrocarbon/water) and additives. It's the solvents (VOCs) that are the environmental problem.

UV is 100% solids - i.e. no VOCs.

best, gordo

 

[TheProcessIStheproduct]

you have to look at total life cycle of the products (production) and disposal of unused product. AQ is mainly silica and water and you typically consume it all and use WATER to cleanup. UV is epoxy (NASTY) and you have to use harsh solvent based press wash to clean and you always have to deal with disposal. So if you boil it down to VOC, sure maybe 2# for AQ... big deal, but I still say net eco impact is much less the AQ and obviously even less with NO COATING AT ALL.

 

[dabob]

just a few links that I found on the search "ecological impact UV coating vs Aqueous"

HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Re-nourish | Design Sustainably

that was just a quick search . . . I know that in the San Francisco Bay Area the Air Quality Control Board has no issues with UV coating and we recycle it without any issues.

 

[chevalier]

I work in a plant that uses both Aqueous and UV coatings with Conventional and Hybrid UV Inks (a mix of UV and conventional ink to minimize changeover time and costs between jobs). Conventional printing utilizes solvents - straight UV (supposedly) doesn't and that seems to make it greener...somehow. Many printers use Hybrid Inks and coatings which gets the positives and negatives of both.

UV printing requires way more ventilation and causes people way more health issues in my experience. We have brand new UV equipment and are nth degree up to code yet I have seen UV cause fainting spells and rashes. I have seen this with my own eyes. We have some very seasoned (25+ years) operators who simply cannot be around a press running UV without serious discomfort and rash outbreaks. I myself have been short of breath from a standing near a delivery of an UV press during a press approval - despite enhanced ventilation. UV printing is supposedly more energy efficient but requires lamps that require a lot of support equipment for cooling, conditioning and ventilating (I find it hard to believe it is actually more energy efficient after all of this).

I've never heard of anybody having serious health/environmental issues from modern conventional (virtually alcohol-free) printing. However, I have seen press operators with faded/disappearing tattoos from exposure to chemicals used to clean up conventional inks. Just because it doesn't cause a rash or shortness of breath immediately does not mean that its vapors (including VOCs) don't potentially cause serious detrimental health effects.

Virtually all industrial processes create byproducts/externalities and are never truly "green". Even those fancy new windmill generators are made of steel (which is made from mined iron and coal). Conventional printing releases VOCs into the air. UV printing releases Ozone into the air. UV printing definitely looks nicer and if you think California air regulations are top-notch follow their lead. The reality is "Pick your poison.".

I found this and it might be useful (thanks to the limey taxpayers).
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/pseries.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/p4.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/p7.pdf

 

[TheProcessIStheproduct]

I agree with above post. I will bath in AQ as well as any other pressroom chemical, but 5 minutes cleaning up UV and you feel like crap. That is the problem with fixating on one metric, like VOC's, and not looking at health impact and full life cycle impact.

Just like with cars looking only at MPG, the hybrids are the biggest blight on the environment, but people look only at MPG so they can feel good about themselves. Look at some of the Zinc mines in Russia sometime and then think twice about high five'ng the tree huggers driving hybrids.