A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing By Sachin R. Kadam Processes

Graduate Student, Enviornmental Health and Safety Management

Mary Anne Evans, Ph.D.

Professor, School of Print Media

Sandra Rothenberg, Ph.D.

Professor, College of Business A Research Monograph of the

Printing Industry Center at RIT Rochester Institute of Technology

No. PICRM-2005-01

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes

By Sachin R. Kadam Graduate Student, Environmental Health and Safety Management

Mary Anne Evans, Ph.D. Professor, School of Print Media

Sandra Rothenberg, Ph.D. Professor, College of Business

Rochester Institute of Technology

A Research Monograph of the Printing Industry Center at RIT Rochester, NY December 2005

PICRM-2005-01 © 2005 Printing Industry Center at RIT— All rights reserved.

 With Thanks

The research agenda of the Printing Industry Center at RIT and the publication of research findings are supported by the following organizations:

bc

ii Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Table of Contents

Introduction...... 3 Background...... 5 Evaluation Method...... 9 Results...... 15 Analysis of the Results...... 25 Conclusion...... 33 References...... 35 Appendix A...... 37 Appendix B...... 43 Appendix C...... 45 Appendix D...... 47 Appendix E...... 49 Appendix F...... 53 Appendix G...... 57

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes   Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Introduction

­The printing industry has been changing traditional printing processes. Moreover, digital dramatically for over 20 years. While the technology has its own demerits that restrict its majority of print volume is generated by offset use for certain circumstances. It is essential for lithography, many print operations are bring- printers to know and understand how the envi- ing in digital technologies as a complement ronmental, health, and safety aspects of their or even replacement for some offset market digital printing operations compare to tradi- segments. Amongst the advantages of these tional printing technologies. new digital technologies are the ability to produce variable data printing and economi- In this paper we compare some environmental, cally viable short-run jobs. At the same time, health, and safety issues associated with litho- societal, consumer, and regulatory pressures are graphic and digital printing processes. Two driving all areas of industry to examine closely commonly used press types, sheetfed lithograph- the effects of their operations on the environ- ic and digital electrophotographic, have been ment. With the advancement and proliferation studied to quantify material consumption, waste of digital technologies, the printing industry is generation, and certain health and safety aspects looking forward to digital printing as a panacea at each stage of document production. Since the for some significant technical and environmen- economic advantages of each technology relate tal problems that are currently associated with closely to print run-length, the experiments traditional printing methods. were constructed around a long- and short-run framework. The objectives of this study were: The two digital technologies showing the most growth potential are inkjet and electrophotog- • To identify and analyze environmen- raphy (Romano, 2003). Both technologies are tal, health, and safety (EHS) issues developing the capability to approach offset associated with lithographic and lithography in image quality. High-end elec- digital printing processes. trophotographic production presses are able to produce output at a rate which makes accessi- • To provide technical information, ble some short-run offset market segments and based on EHS observations and analy- there is significant development activity in this sis, which printing companies can use area from press manufacturers, software devel- when making technological choices. opers and consumables providers (The Print Extension, Inc., 2004) Volumes from conven- • To raise awareness within the print- tional printing technologies will probably grow ing industry about material usage and more slowly than those from digital technolo- waste generation resulting from print gies. Electrophotography is predicted to grow operations, thus creating a basis for at about 2.8% and inkjet at about 8.3% for the integrating EHS into printing busi- period 2003-2008, compared with an increase ness management. in only 0.7% over this period for offset lithog- raphy (Business Development Advisory, Inc., • To deliver a methodology by which 2003). However, issues of environment and a printing operation can perform a workplace health and safety do not disappear comparative environmental assess- merely because a facility is utilizing electro- ment of two different printing photographic digital technologies rather than technologies.

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes  Introduction

This research report provides guidelines from will show a different utilization of resources which a print technology comparison process based on modifications, operation param- can be derived for application to specific press- eters, and the type of consumables used. The es within a print production operation. Each data generated in this study is of less signifi- print technology involves different technical cance than the methodologies used to generate, considerations for the evaluation of materials normalize and compare the data. and energy consumption and the generation of waste. Each press model based on similar tech- nology and even the same model of press oper- ated in two different production environments

 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Background

The printing industry uses various printing significant environmental and health impacts, and technologies for printing books, magazines, its considerable space requirements (Cahill, n.d.). newspapers, business documents, catalogs, forms, etc. These technologies include lithog- The digital printing industry, on the other raphy, rotogravure, flexography, screen, letter- hand, is growing at a steady pace although so press, and digital technologies including inkjet far it represents just less than 10% of U.S. print and electrophotography. The use of these tech- industry revenues (Romano, 2003). The driv- nologies depends on the required quality of the ing forces for the adoption of this technology print, number of impressions to be printed, include minimal press setup time, variable data availability of required resources, cost of the customization, image quality improvements, equipment, consumables cost per print, need to sophisticated screening algorithms, lower costs use variable content, and other factors. for short run, minimal space requirements, overall reduction in hazardous materials usage, In this current environment of technologi- reduced waste production, and the ability to cal change, print volumes are migrating from transmit and collaborate on electronic print conventional offset lithographic printing files all around the world (Cahill, n.d.). to digital printing. According to the U.S. Economic Census data, lithography was still Despite these advantages, technology and cost, the most commonly used technology in 2001 disadvantages remain that will keep signifi- with a total of 15,038 firms using this technol- cant print volumes in the traditional arena; ogy (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). However, the these include generally slower throughput for number of printing companies using lithogra- digital technologies, higher cost per impres- phy is declining as new technologies become sion for longer runs, and in some cases, a available and new applications become acces- requirement for specially prepared and coated sible. Between 1999 and 2001, the number of substrates for optimal output quality (Cahill, offset presses operating in the U.S. declined by n.d.). The migration to digital technology is 21,000—a 12% decrease. The dominance of partially hindered by the limited investment lithographic printing in the industry’s recent capital available to many printing companies. history may be attributed to the efficient Also, many offset printers are small in size production of multiple and inexpensive copies, and employ fewer than 10 employees, most very high resolution and print quality, a wide of whom are traditionally trained, so conver- range of coated and uncoated substrates, lower sion from conventional to digital print tech- consumables cost per impression for longer run nologies may be economically cumbersome. jobs, and considerable industry experience in Lithographic printing is likely to remain a color management (Cahill, n.d.). viable technology for the long term for static, long run jobs either as a standalone technol- However, there are certain barriers for the ogy or as a component of hybrid production continued dominance of lithographic technol- (Romano, 2003). Digital color printing is ogy including its very limited capability to do poised to grow significantly over the next five variable data printing, the associated prepress years with the primary growth driver being setup and preparation costs, higher cost per print cost reduction (Fleming, 2004). A compo- for short run jobs, its potential to generate nent of the anticipated cost reduction will be the management of EHS related issues related

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes  Background

to the fixed costs of the marking technology identified which minimize energy consump- hardware, and to consumables consumption tion in transportation. However, significant and disposal. environmental issues remain. In lithographic printing, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) Environmental Awareness in generated from the use of fountain solution, the Printing Industry coating and cleaning solutions, and printing An awareness of environmental, health, and ink can contribute to the formation of smog— safety issues plays an important role in the the result of a complex photochemical reaction identification of printing technologies for between VOCs and nitrogen oxides induced future investment. Lithographic printers by ultraviolet light from sun. This pollu- may not be familiar with available govern- tion impacts the environment with negative ment-supported environmental information consequences to humans, animals, and plants. programs, and may rely primarily on vendors, Hazardous chemical emissions resulting from suppliers, customers and trade associations press and platemaking processes may cause for such information (Rothenberg, Toribio & both acute effects (e.g., eye, skin, or respiratory Becker, 2002). More than 80% of firms in the tract irritation) and long-term health effects on printing industry are small with fewer than 20 exposed workers. Particulate dust generated by employees, below the level at which perma- paper handling and cutting, and spray powders nent environmental expertise can be brought used in printing and finishing may lead to in-house (Romano, 2003). In such compa- long-term respiratory problems. Wastewater nies there may be few resources to allocate to discharges of platemaking chemicals, water- managing and planning environmental, health based coatings, etc., may lead to contamina- and safety issues. As competition increases, tion of the groundwater system. Solid waste there may not be ready access to information consisting of papers, used containers, etc., required to support proposals and quotations consumes landfill capacity. The hazardous waste for environmentally conscious customers. disposal processes necessary to manage waste inks, solvent-laden cleaning materials, etc., are The printing industry has generated inter- expensive and resource-depleting. These factors est from environmental regulatory bodies and place a burden on the printing operation, and environmental protection groups for decades, on society. due to in part to the sheer size of the industry (estimated to be in excess of $140 billion in Health and safety hazards in the printing indus- revenues in the U.S. for 2002) (Romano, 2003) try mainly arise from chemical exposure and and in part to the array of chemicals and mate- contact with hazardous machine components. rials used (Rothenberg et al., 2002). In order Amongst the hazards caused by chemical expo- to maximize the effectiveness of resource sure are occupational asthma, dermatitis, and utilization, an effective Enviornmental in extreme cases brain damage. Press cleaning, Management System (EMS) should link into solvent handling, and platemaking/reprocess- the entire print production cycle, and be incor- ing chemical exposures are the primary causes porated into the planning, design, production, of dermatitis in printing industry employees and distribution stages. (Printing Industry Advisory Committee, 2002). Exposure may result in acute effects (e.g., eye, There is a level of environmental awareness in skin, or respiratory tract irritation) or long- the printing industry that makes it possible to term illnesses such as cancer. Chemicals used make responsible choices. Print buyers are able in some specialized inks and adhesive materi- to specify papers with a high recycled content, als may trigger occupational asthma (Graphical or to select grades produced in a totally chlo- Paper and Media Union, n.d.). rine-free process (TCF). Biodegradable inks based on “natural” substances such as soy may Anecdotal evidence indicates that digital have lower solvent levels. In finishing, bind- processes that do not involve the production ing processes can be specified which enable of color-separated masters or plates use less full recycling of paper content without glue material in the overall production process than contamination. Distribution processes can be traditional methods requiring fixed plates. It is

 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Background

also generally understood that digital process- The objective of this study is to investigate es require little or no makeready, and that the these precepts, and to compare two sheetfed print-on-demand philosophy minimizes over- presses which could potentially be used to runs (extra copies that are not needed). These produce similar print jobs; a sheetfed offset two factors have given rise to the assump- lithographic press (Heidelberg Speedmaster tion that digital technologies consume fewer 74) and a liquid-ink digital sheetfed press (HP resources per impression than fixed-plate tech- Indigo 3000). Our goal is to present a road- nologies such as offset lithography, flexography, map that can be followed by those wishing and gravure. However, in practice it is known to provide their own comparative data on in- that material usage is involved in setup proce- house presses. dures on digital presses, and that significant waste can be generated in routine and non- routine maintenance.

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes   Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Evaluation Method

In order to assess the environmental and health Target Image aspects and impacts of lithographic and digital A common test target design was used simi- printing presses, a mass balance approach was lar to the type which would be used for gener- used to compare the materials consumption al press function evaluations. The overall and waste generation of two sheetfed presses ink coverage was designed to be high so that widely used in the industry, the Heidelberg consumption could be measured more accu- Speedmaster 74 and the HP Indigo 3000. rately. Images were selected to clearly indicate Since the variables of the study are known to tone reproduction, fine details, a color gamut be affected by run-length, the experiments which exploits the full range available with were constructed around a long- and short- the inks used, and the standard image quality run framework (500 and 3000 impressions). measurement elements such as grayscales, solid Presses were operated under conditions judged color patches, etc. In the offset process, screen by experienced press operators to be as close angles and line screen selections were identi- as possible to “normal,” and the makeready fied to be within the “normal” range generally and preparation steps were conducted so as to used for images of this type. The image size achieve a level of print quality that would be was designed to be the same when output on acceptable to most customers for documents of both presses. the type used. This introduced some subjectiv- ity into the process, but efforts were made to In the makeready and press preparation process, generate measurably equivalent output quality acceptable print quality was determined by from both presses. monitoring the optical density set points CMYK (1.45, 1.45, 1.10, and 1.75, respective- The general concept of a mass balance approach ly) with standard screen angles (15˚, 75˚, 0˚, is to assess the total inputs in terms of energy, and 45˚, respectively). Print order was YMCK. materials, consumables, etc., and to compare to these the output in terms of usable product, Resource Utilization and waste, and by-products. For each individual Waste Measurement process the challenge is to derive appropriate metrics to encompass the input and output Paper variables, and to calculate process efficien- To assess the quantity of paper consumed, sheet cies. In this study, the range of metrics and count was used rather than mass due to the measured/calculated parameters were selected sensitivity of the paper in absorbing moisture so as to be useful in evaluating the two technol- from the atmosphere. Although the presses are ogies. After construction of a detailed process operated under controlled environments, some and material flow analysis (shown schemati- mass differences due to humidity changes were cally in Appendix E), the following metrics observed over the course of the experimental were utilized: air emissions, including volatile work. For a final mass assessment the paper organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous count was multiplied by the average sheet mass. air pollutants (HAPs); resource utilization and Data was taken from the press counters and waste; lost material value (LMV); and noise. checked against retained waste and produc- tion sheets. Mass measurements were used to measure consumption of ink, coatings, solvent, and cleaning and fountain solutions. Initial and

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes  Evaluation Method

final masses of containers were recorded equivalent to the usage quantity since no regen- to calculate the resource consumption and eration or recycling is employed. waste generation. Offset Press Cleaning Method Metrics specific to the HP Indigo 3000: The standard cleaning process was used. Volumetric measurement techniques were used Inkote® was applied over the plates to prevent to measure imaging oil and imaging agent. the inks on the plates from drying. In some cases, estimates of line volumes were calculated geometrically, and inaccessible tank 1. Liner cleaning: The liners were taken volumes were explored with dipsticks before and out carefully and weighed for residual after various stages of the press runs. The blanket ink. Pre-weighed solvent-laden rags and PIP (photo imaging plate) were weighed, were used for cleaning the ink on the and the usage for the press runs was calculated. liners. Following use the rags were replaced in sealed bags and a mass Metrics specific to the Heidelberg offset press: difference determined. Masses were recorded for the plate, ink reservoir liner, and offset blanket cleaning paper. Cleaning 2. Ink roller cleaning: The excess ink rags were separated and labeled in sealed, from the ink fountain was collected in weighed bags for use in cleaning different parts pre-weighed collection dishes. Rollers of the press. After use, solvent-laden rags were were cleaned as described with the returned to the same bags for weighing, and the liners above. residual ink and solvents used were calculated. 3. Plates cleaning: Plates were taken Platemaking out from the press and cleaned using Kodak Polychrome Graphic plates (negative a mixture of plate desensitizer, plate thermal polymer/aluminum) were used with cleaner, and solvent. Ink/solvent-laden the KPG Thermal Gold process. Details are rags were sealed for weighing and the given in Appendix F. plates were sent for recycling.

Plates were exposed using an infrared laser in 4. Blanket and roller cleaning: Weighed, the platesetter, which causes the infrared dye clean rags were soaked in solvent and and the accelerator agents in the sensitive layer used for the cleaning of the blankets, of the plate to react, generating an acid which coating rollers, intermediate rollers, crosslinks the exposed polymer coating, render- and other press parts exposed to ink ing it non-soluble in the alkaline environment in the press run. of the development process. Plates are then pre-baked at a high temperature to harden the 5. Waste ink tray cleaning: Ink trays polymer in image areas. Polymer in the non- used for ink and solvent waste collec- image areas is dissolved. Gum arabic or finisher tion were taken out and the contents is used to increase the water receptivity of the i.e. the mixture of ink and solvent non-image area. were transferred to the weighed waste container. Ink trays were then cleaned Since the chemical usage for just one set of using solvent-laden rags. plates does not produce measurable changes in the platemaking system, chemical inventory data for a 3-month period was used to calculate the average amount of developer, replenisher, and finisher used in the process of making one set of plates. The calculated values were applied to the short and long run data sets on the assumption that the materials consumption is well-controlled. The waste generated is

10 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Evaluation Method

Air Emission Monitoring

Particulate Matter Emission The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) method 500 and method 600 were used for total dust and respirable dust monitoring respectively. Two types of sampling were conducted on each press.

1. Area sampling or total dust sampling: For area sampling, the samples were taken at the locations where the maximum concentration of dust was anticipated. For the offset press run, the sampler was fixed directly above the coating powder application zone (see Figure 1). For the digital press run, the sampler was placed near the exhaust end of the press (see Figure 2).

2. Personal sampling or respirable dust sampling: For personal sampling, Figure 1. Total Dust Sampling for the the samplers were placed within the Lithographic Press breathing zone of the operators in a location where significant time is spent during press operations. For the offset press run, the sampler was attached near the press outlet zone (see Figure 3). For the digital press run, the sampler was attached near the computer monitor of the controller station (see Figure 4).

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions. The NIOSH 1500/1501 standard was used for VOC monitoring. VOC sampling was conducted for both area and personal sampling in a manner similar to the particu- late matter sampling.

3. Area sampling or non-breathing zone VOC sampling: For area sampling for the offset press, the sampler was fixed at the top of the ink tank (see Figure 5). For the digital press, the sampler Figure 2. Total Dust Sampling for the Digital Press was placed near the exhaust end of the press (see Figure 6).

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 11 Evaluation Method

4. Personal sampling or breathing zone VOC sampling: For personal sampling, the sampler was attached to the shirt collar of the operator and the sample was taken at the time of offset press cleaning anticipated to involve maximum VOC exposure (see Figures 7a and 7b). For the digital press runs, the sampler was attached near the computer monitor of the controller station (see Figure 8).

VOC and HAP Calculation Potential and actual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollut- ant (HAP) emissions were calculated from the results obtained during press runs according to the conditions outlined above. Potential VOC or HAP emission is calculated as the prod- Figure 3. Respirable Dust Sampling for the uct of VOC or HAP content of the chemical, Lithographic Press and the amount of the chemical used. The actual VOC or HAP emission is the prod- uct of potential VOC or HAP and emission factors corresponding to chemical type and application practice. The emission factors were based on a Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) guiding document (Jones 2001) and are summarized in Table 1. Noise Monitoring Noise monitoring was conducted using a noise dosimeter. The microphone of the sampler was clipped near the shoulder of the operator. Since these presses are not operated continually, monitoring was performed only for the dura- tion of the press run.

Figure 4. Respirable Dust Sampling for the Digital Press

12 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Evaluation Method

No. Description Emission Factor

1 Lithographic ink 0.05 2 Ink and other chemicals used in digital press 1.0 3 Cleaning solutions applied without using rags 1.0 4 Cleaning solutions applied using rags 0.5 5 Coating solution (aqueous) 1.0 6 Other 1.0

Table 1. VOC and HAP Emissions Factors Corresponding to Chemical Type and Application Practice, According to GATF (Jones, 2001)

Figure 5. Non-breathing zone VOC sampling for the Lithographic Press

Figure 6. Non-breathing VOC zone sampling for the Digital Press

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 13 Evaluation Method

Figure 7a. Breathing zone VOC sampling for the Lithographic Press

Figure 7b. Breathing zone VOC sampling for the Lithographic Press

Figure 8. Breathing zone VOC sampling for the Digital Press

14 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Results

Short- and long-run press trials (500 and 3000 required along with 0.34g/impression of plate- acceptable quality impressions) were conducted making chemicals. These materials were not on both the Heidelberg Speedmaster 74 litho- used in the digital press runs, which required graphic offset press, and the HP Indigo 3000 about 0.7g/impression imaging oil, and about digital press. An appropriate level of makeready 6 mg/impression of imaging agent. The overall and preparation was implemented in order to chemical consumption per usable impression produce prints with generally acceptable print (including consumed non-waste ink) for offset quality. During each press run the masses and is about 3.7g/impression, compared with 1.2g/ volumes of consumables were recorded. The impression for the digital process. However, for results derived from these observations and the short run, this consumption per impression measurements are summarized below. soars to 16g/impression for offset, but remains low at 1g/impression for digital. These figures Materials Consumption show that the consumables usage rate per Due to the makeready process involved (regis- impression is significantly higher for short-run tration, ink/water balance, etc.) with the offset offset than short-run digital, but that the differ- press runs, the overall paper usage is higher ence diminishes with increasing run length. than the digital press for both the short and long runs. The difference is significantly great- Waste Generation er with the short run, with the offset paper The principal component of waste is the paper usage rate 3.7 times greater than the digital. used in makeready, which is significantly great- In this data set this difference diminishes for er for offset (35-75% waste) than for digital the long run to a factor of only 1.1, but that (5-20%). Table 3 shows that ink waste contrib- is confounded by an unusually large number utes significantly to the overall waste generation of waste sheets (600) in this experiment. The in the lithographic process, contributing about usable impressions for the offset short run 2.7g/impression and 0.5g/impression for the comprise only about 25% of the total paper short and long runs respectively. The ink waste consumed. The usable rate for the digital in the digital press run was minimal, as the short run is 95% (see Table 12. Resource unused ink is usually recycled. However, the Utilization Efficiency). digital press generates some ink waste during regular maintenance, and this was not account- In order to print six times as many impressions ed for in these calculations. The total quan- (500 to 3000) the offset ink usage increases by tity of waste generated from the cleaning and a factor of 1.4. This factor is 6.25 in the digital platemaking processes in the lithographic press process. However, the total ink usage was lower run was assumed to be constant for both the for the digital press (0.5g/impression digital short and long runs, since the setup and clean- vs. 0.83g/impression offset). Based on long- up procedures are independent of run length. run data, the materials consumption per usable Dividing this quantity by numbers of usable impression is as follows: the fountain solution impressions, the press cleaning chemical waste and aqueous coating solution usage in the offset amounts to 2.7g/impression and 4.6g/impres- press run averages out to 1.6g/impression and sion for the long and short runs respectively. 0.6g/impression respectively. Approx 0.33g/ Excluding developer solution on the basis that impression of cleaning materials and approx it is used multiple times, the overall chemical 0.6g/impression of cleaning rag usage were waste including ink is approximately

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 15 Results

Lithographic Press Digital Press No. Parameter Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper usage:

a. Printed sheet count (acceptable quality) 500 3000 500 3000

b. Wasted sheet count 1442 1057 24 600

c. Total paper usage count 1942 4057 524 3600

2 Ink usage:

a. Cyan ink usage (g) 450 625 75.77 377.47

b. Black ink usage (g) 450 625 33.67 241.65

c. Yellow ink usage (g) 450 625 37.70 507.57

d. Magenta ink usage (g) 450 625 96.18 394.13

Total (g): 1800 2500 243.32 1520.82

3 Fountain solution usage (g) 3960 4800 N/A N/A

4 Aqueous coating solution usage (g) 300* 1800 N/A N/A

5 Cleaning solution usage:

a. Solvent usage (g) 770.00 770.00 N/A N/A

b. Inkote usage (g) 39.38 39.38 N/A N/A

c. Plate cleaner usage (g) 91.62 91.62 N/A N/A

d. Plate desensitizer usage (g) 80.85 80.85 N/A N/A

e. Lithotine usage (g) 29.18 29.18 N/A N/A

f. Cleaning rags usage (g) 1744.67 1744.67 N/A N/A

6 Platemaking chemistry usage:**

a. Developer solution (g) 379.68 379.68 N/A N/A

b. Replenisher solution (g) 382.73 382.73 N/A N/A

c. Finisher solution/gum (g) 264.16 264.16 N/A N/A

7 Imaging oil usage (g) N/A N/A 258.43 1981.00

8 Imaging agent usage (g) N/A N/A 3.14* 18.87

* Indicates values calculated from long run results. ** Values calculated from process chemical inventory data. Table 2. Materials Consumption 16 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Results

3.2g/impression for the long run and 7.3g/ Work Environment Conditions impression for the short run. The digital Results obtained from particulate matter and process generates little comparative chemical VOC (volatile organic compound) monitor- waste of this type, but does generate solid waste ing are summarized in Table 4. Both particu- components related to blanket materials (see late matter and VOC emission levels are well Table 3) amounting to about 0.2g/impression below the required air quality standards listed for the long run and 1.1g/impression for the in Table 4. The particulate matter emission short run. It is in this area that some signifi- was found to be almost the same for both tech- cant differences between resource utilization for nologies. However, in the breathing zone, the lithographic and digital print processes can be VOC emissions from the lithographic press seen. (See Table 3). (due primarily to the cleaning solutions) were found to be almost double the VOC emissions from the digital press. Overall, the indoor air quality was found to be within normal levels for both technologies.

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 17 Results

Lithographic Press Digital Press No. Parameter Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper waste: a. Waste paper count 7 0 0 179 b. Makeready waste count 1435 1057 24 421 Total (Count): 1442 1057 24 600

2 Ink waste: a. Skin ink waste (g) 439.43 439.43 N/A N/A b. Excess ink from ink tank(g) 772.70 994.56 N/A N/A c. Ink on spatula (g) 52.46 59.84 N/A N/A d. Ink on liners (g) 65.87 65.99 N/A N/A Total (g): 1330.46 1559.82 N/A N/A

3 Liner waste (g) 187.3 187.3 N/A N/A

4 Press cleaning waste: a. Waste blanket cleaning Paper (g) 116.60 116.60 N/A N/A b. Waste ink & solvent on rags (g) 705.95 705.95 N/A N/A c. Waste coating & solvent on rags (g) 278.01 278.01 N/A N/A d. Waste ink & solvent in wash tray (g) 225.08 225.08 N/A N/A e. Waste aqueous coating solution (g) 767.17 4603.00 N/A N/A f. Plate cleaner/preserver (g) 172.47 172.47 N/A N/A g. Inkote (g) 39.38 39.38 N/A N/A h. Litholine (g) 29.18 29.18 N/A N/A

5 Press repair waste: a. Blanket waste (g) N/A N/A 448.52 448.52 b. Metal stripes waste (g) N/A N/A 94.24 94.24 c. Impression paper waste(g) N/A N/A 49.62 49.62 d. PIP plate waste (g) N/A N/A 0.00 53.67

6 Platemaking chemistry waste:** a. Developer solution (g) 379.68 379.68 N/A N/A b. Replenisher solution (g) 382.73 382.73 N/A N/A c. Finisher solution/gum (g) 264.16 264.16 N/A N/A ** Values calculated from process chemical inventory data.

Table 3. Waste Generation

18 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Results

Generally the noise levels measured during However, at some point during measurement press runs on both the lithographic and the a peak noise level of 147.7 dB in was recorded digital presses are acceptable with respect to the in the offset press, crossing the 140 dB OSHA standards listed in Table 5. limit.

Lithographic Press Digital Press Standard No. Particulate Matter Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run Level

1 a. Total particulate matter < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.9 < 0.9 15.0 a (mg/m3)

b. Respirable particulate < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 5.0 b matter (mg/m3)

2 VOC as n-Hexane:

a. VOC emission outside 7.2 7.2 483.0 483.0 N/A c breathing zone (mg/m3)

b. VOC emission in 120.0 120.0 74.0 74.0 400.0 d breathing zone (mg/m3) a. OSHA Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit (TWA-PEL) for total dust (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999). b. OSHA Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit (TWA-PEL) for respirable dust (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999). c. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has a threshold limit of 5 tons per year (5 TPY) for VOC emission. No standard exists for VOC emission rate. However, the actual VOC emission figures from Table 6 shows that the VOC emissions from both the presses are well below 5 TPY (i.e. around 20 kg per day). d. OSHA and ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) have set emission limits for each individual VOC, and therefore, no standard exists for the total VOC exposure limit. Therefore, exposure limits for each individual VOC listed in MSDS relevant to cleaning operations are studied. Except glycerol and phosphoric acid that account for 2% of VOC components, all VOCs have ACGIH TLV- TWA limit of 100ppm (nearly 400mg/m3) or above.

Table 4. Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Results (in mg/m3)

Lithographic Digital Press Standard Level No. Parameter Press (dB) (dB) (dB)

1 Peak noise level in dB 147.7 120.6 140.0 a

2 Time Weighted Average (TWA) in dB 63.1 61.9 90.0 b

3 Average sound level in dB 70.0 68.1 N/A

4 Run time (Hr:Min:Sec) 3:05:35 3:23:00 N/A a. OSHA peak noise level. b. OSHA Time Weighted Average Noise Level.

Table 5. Noise Monitoring Results

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 19 Results

VOC and HAP Emissions Details of the VOC calculations are given in Cleaning solutions used in offset press cleaning Appendix A. Actual VOC emissions amount to are a major source of VOC generation, contrib- 1.3g/impression for short-run offset, decreas- uting nearly 66% and 58% of total VOCs from ing to 0.26g/impression for the long run as the the short and long runs respectively. Inks and overhead component related to cleaning solvent imaging oil are also major VOC contributors in is mitigated. The digital press data shows 0.9g/ the digital press, contributing nearly 42% and impression for the short run, rising to 1.0g/ 57% for the short run and 37% and 62% for impression for the long run, based on imaging long run operations as shown in Table 6. oil usage which increases with run length.

Lithographic Press Digital Press

Chemical Type Potential VOC Emission (g) Actual VOC Emission (g) Actual VOC Emission (g)*

Short Long Short Long Short Long

Inks 238.32 330.98 11.92 16.55 180.61 1115.24

Imaging agent N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.76 16.60

Imaging oil N/A N/A N/A N/A 245.50 1882.00

Fountain solution 93.17 112.94 93.17 112.94 N/A N/A

Coating solution 13.8 82.8 13.8 82.8 N/A N/A

Platemaking bath solution 108.95 108.95 108.95 108.95 N/A N/A

Cleaning solution applied 824.41 824.41 412.21 412.21 N/A N/A with rags

Cleaning solution applied 37.10 37.10 37.10 37.10 N/A N/A without rags

Total (g) 1315.75 1497.18 677.15 770.55 428.87 3013.84 * Same as potential VOC emissions. Potential VOC emission is the maximum VOC emission that the chemical can produce if its allowed to dry completely at high temperature for long period, whereas the actual VOC emission represents the emission value corresponding to the normal press operating conditions. **Sample calculation for VOC emission from imaging oil usage: Since the press temperature is much greater than the flash point of the imaging oil, full evaporation (emission factor 1.0) is assumed (see Appendix A). Therefore, Actual VOC emission = VOC content (%) x imaging oil usage (g) x emission factor = (95/100) x 1981 x 1.0 = 1882 g.

Table 6. Potential and Actual VOC Emissions

Actual HAP Emission (g)*

Short Run Long Run

HAP from fountain solution usage 61.37 74.40

HAP usage per impression 0.12 0.025 * HAP emission values are calculated from actual chemical usage and average HAP content from MSDS data. Table 7. Potential and Actual HAP Emissions in the Lithographic Press 20 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Results

Total Waste Quantity (kg) Waste Disposal Cost ($) No. Waste Category Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper waste disposal:

a. Waste paper (kg) 0.22 0.00 $0.020 $0.000

b. Makeready waste (kg) 44.34 32.66 -$0.733 -$0.540

Total: 44.56 32.66 -$0.713 -$0.540

2 Ink waste disposal (kg) 1.331 1.560 $6.071 $7.118

3 Fountain waste disposal:*

a. Fountain concentrate waste (kg) 0.097 0.118 $0.443 $0.538

b. Fountain substitute (kg) 0.085 0.103 $0.388 $0.470

c. Wastewater (kg) 3.782 4.585 $17.255 $21.110

Total: ------$18.086 $22.118

4 Press cleaning waste:

a. Waste blanket paper (kg) 0.117 0.117 $0.011 $0.011

b. Waste rags (count.) 13 13 $1.820 $1.820

Total: ------$1.831 $1.831

5 Waste aqueous coating 0.767** 4.603 $0.000 $0.000 solution (kg)

6 Platemaking waste disposal:

a. Developer waste (kg) 0.380 0.380 N/A N/A

b. Replenisher waste (kg) 0.383 0.383 N/A N/A

c. Finisher/gum waste(kg) 0.264 0.264 N/A N/A

Total: ------

7 Liner waste disposal (kg) 0.187 0.187 $0.017 $0.017

8 Plate waste disposal (kg) 1.461 1.461 $1.767 $1.767

Total Waste Cost: $27.039 $32.311 * Recirculation of fountain solution has not been taken into consideration. ** Value calculated from long run result. Negative (-) values indicate revenue from recycling.

Table 8. Waste Disposal Cost for the Lithographic Press.

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 21 Results

In this study, only the lithographic press gener- tain waste cost is the most significant contribu- ates hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The HP tor, followed by ink waste cost. Fountain waste Indigo 3000 has no potential for HAP emis- and ink waste disposal accounts for around sions under these conditions. The HAP compo- 67% and 22% of total costs for the short and nent is 20butoxy ethanol in the fountain solu- long runs respectively, with negligible differ- tion, and the use increases with run length. ences between run lengths. This translates to Note that ethylene glycol (present in the foun- disposal costs per usable impression of 5.4 cents tain solution concentrate and in the plate for the short run, decreasing to 1.1 cents for developer solution) is no longer regarded as a the long run. Recycled sheets are allocated a HAP. As shown in Table 7, this results in HAP negative cost based on incoming revenues. The levels of 0.12g/impression for the short run and total cost of these sheets is not recovered fully, 0.025g/impression for the long run, indicat- even though the recycled material is efficiently ing that HAP emissions per usable impression sorted to maximize value. (See Table 8). decrease with run length. Detailed HAP calcu- lations are shown in Appendix B. As shown in Table 9, the digital press involves negligible waste disposal costs and waste Environmental Cost Estimation disposal liabilities. Waste disposal costs were calculated by multi- plying waste quantities by unit costs for the Lost Material Value corresponding waste disposal methods. Waste Lost material value (LMV) is a parameter that disposal cost details are shown in Appendix C expresses the value of the resources lost in and calculations are summarized in Table 8. producing the product. This is calculated by From these figures, it can be seen that the foun- multiplying the quantity of material lost by its

Total Waste Quantity (kg) Waste Disposal Cost ($) No. Waste Category Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper waste disposal:

a. Waste paper (kg) minimal 2.99 minimal $0.272

b. Makeready waste (kg) 0.38 6.99 -$0.006 -$0.115

Total: N/A N/A -$0.006 $0.157

2 Press repair waste:

a. Blanket waste in kg(no.) 0.112(1) 0.449(4) $0.010 $0.040

b. Metal stripes waste in kg(no.) 0.023(1) 0.094(4) $0.002 $0.008

c. Impression film wastei n kg(no.) 0.050(1) 0.050(1) $0.005 $0.005

d. PIP plate waste in kg(no.) 0.000(0) 0.054(1) $0.000 $0.005

Total: N/A N/A $0.017 $0.058

Total Waste $ Cost: $0.011 $0.215

Table 9. Waste Disposal Cost for the Digital Press

22 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Results

Total Waste Quantity (kg) Loss Material Value ($) No. Waste Category Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper waste:

a. Waste paper (kg) 0.22 0.00 $0.425 $0.000

b. Makeready waste (kg) 44.34 32.66 $85.709 $63.132

Total: 44.56 32.66 $86.135 $63.132

2 Ink waste disposal (kg) 1.331 1.560 $12.788 $14.988

3 Fountain waste disposal:*

a. Fountain concentrate waste 0.097 0.118 $0.377 $0.459 (kg)

b. Fountain substitute waste 0.085 0.103 $0.389 $0.472 (kg)

c. Wastewater (kg) 3.782 4.585 $0.000 $0.000

Total: N/A N/A $0.766 $0.931

4 Press Cleaning Waste:

a. Waste blanket cleaning 0.117 0.117 $0.342 $0.342 paper (kg)

b. Waste rags (nos.) 13 13 N/A N/A

Total: N/A N/A $0.342 $0.342

5 Waste aqueous coating 0.767** 4.603 $4.561 $27.374 solution (kg)

6 Platemaking waste disposal:

a. Developer waste (kg) 0.380 0.380 $3.655 $3.655

b. Replenisher waste (kg) 0.383 0.383 $4.020 $4.020

c. Finisher/gum waste(kg) 0.264 0.264 $2.002 $2.002

Total: N/A N/A $9.677 $9.677

7 Liner waste disposal (nos.) 4 4 $1.600 $1.600

8 Plate waste disposal (nos.) 4 4 $54.240 $54.240

Total Lost Material Value: $170.109 $172.284 * Recirculation of fountain solution was not taken into consideration. ** Value calculated from the long run result.

Table 10. Lost Material Value in the Lithographic Press

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 23 Results

unit purchase price (see Appendix D). These The lost material values for the digital press are values for the lithographic press are summarized tabulated in Table 11. Incorporating routine in Table 10. maintenance into the waste calculation, the blanket waste exerts a significant contribution The paper contribution to LMV is significant, to the overall LMV in both the short and long contributing 51% and 37% to the total LMV press runs. Including these factors, the LMV for the short and long runs respectively. The per usable impression amounts to 80 cents for plate and ink contributions are around 32% the short run and 73 cents for the long run. and 8% of total LMV for both the short and These factors may not be applicable to every long press runs. The overall LMV amounts to press run of this type. Paper waste contributes 34 cents per usable impression for the short little to the overall LMV. run, decreasing to just under 6 cents for the long run. This metric is a useful indicator in examining the relationship between waste consumption and run length.

Total Waste Quantity (kg) Lost Material Value ($) No. Waste Category Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run

1 Paper waste disposal:

a. Waste paper (kg) 0.00 2.99 $0.000 $5.776

b. Makeready waste (kg) 0.38 6.99 $0.734 $13.503

Total: N/A N/A $0.734 $19.279

2 Press maintenance waste:

a. Blanket waste (no.) 1 4 $400.000 $1600.000

b. Metal stripes waste (no.) 1 4 $0.000 $0.000 c. Impression film waste (no.) 1 1 $1.683 $1.683

d. PIP plate waste (no.) 0 1 $0.000 $600.000

Total: N/A N/A $401.683 $2201.683

Total Lost Material Value: $402.372 $2220.962

Table 11. Lost Material Value in the Digital Press

24 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Analysis of the Results

Resource Utilization Efficiency difference in Figure 11 is that the major portion From the resource utilization and waste genera- of VOC emissions for lithography remain tion results, the efficiency of the major consum- constant with run length, as they are associated ables used (i.e., paper and ink) is calculated and primarily with the cleaning and platemaking summarized in Table 12 and Figure 9. From operations. Figure 12 shows the relative contri- Table 12 it can be seen that paper usage is butions of fixed and variable contributions to significantly greater for the lithographic process the overall VOC levels in the lithographic press. compared with the digital process, due primar- For the digital press, all the contributions to ily to the materials consumption involved in the overall VOC emissions increase with the makeready. Overall, the digital press has been print volume and there are no overhead factors. shown to be superior to the sheetfed offset press in terms of material utilization. Resource Utilization Efficiency (%)** Though the digital press calculations indicate 100% efficiency in ink utilization, actual ink Resource Type Lithographic Press Digital Press consumption for the long run is considerably Short Run Long Run Short Run Long Run greater than the extrapolated figure based on short run values. The actual consumption of Paper 26.16 73.95 95.62 83.28 yellow ink is much higher than expected from a short-run data extrapolation (Table 13). This Ink* 26.09 37.61 100 100 was due to paper jams in the long run requiring * Ink loss in blanket and trays is not taken into consideration. blanket cleaning and evaluation using yellow ink ** Percentage of resource used in the final product. For example, in the lithographic process 26.16% of the total paper used for a short run gets used in the final product. These figures can (standard maintenance procedure). This loss of vary depending on the experience of the operator, especially in case of the lithographic press. efficiency was included in the calculations since in the real world of production press operations, such events are not an uncommon occurrence. Table 12. Resource Utilization Efficiency Environmental Impact Although the VOC emissions from both presses 100 are well below the regulatory emission stan- Long Run dards described in Tables 4 and 5, the calculat- ed VOC figures for the digital press are higher 80 Short Run for long runs, due primarily to the imaging oil (Figure 10). The usage rate of the imag- 60 ing oil increases with run length. In compari- son the lithographic press inks have consider- 40 ably lower VOC levels (13.24%), and this ink Efficiency Percent usage increases only slightly with run length. 20 Additionally, the emission factor (i.e., the frac- tion of material emitted into the atmosphere) 0 for lithographic inks is only 0.05, 20 times less Digital Paper Offset Paper Digital Ink Offset Ink than the emission factor for imaging oil at 1.0. Another contributing factor to the gradient Figure 9. Resource Utilization Efficiency (Paper and Ink) %

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 25 Analysis of the Results

Digital Press Only the lithographic press is of concern Lithographic Press 3500 regarding HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants) emissions, since the digital press uses no chemi- 3000 cals classified as HAPs. (Table 6). As with the VOC emissions, total HAP emission levels 2500 do not rise significantly with increase in print 2000 volume, and so the emission level per impres- sion decreases (Figure 14). 1500

1000 VOC Emission (Grams) Environmental Cost 500 The fountain solution waste disposal cost is a 0 major contributing factor to the overall envi- 500 3000 ronmental cost in lithographic printing (Figure Press Run Length (No. of Prints) 15). The contributors to this are both the high volume of waste generated and the waste dispos- Figure 10. VOC Emissions from Lithographic and Digital Presses al cost based on the classification as hazard- showing total emissions for each print run ous waste. However, this cost does not increase significantly with increase in print volume.

Digital Press In comparison, the overall environmental costs Lithographic Press are lower for the digital process (Figure 16). 1.4 Although offset waste disposal costs per impres- 1.2 sion increase with print volume, overall they remain lower for the digital process. Therefore, 1.0 it can be seen that digital technology has an 0.8 advantage in terms of waste disposal costs, which are independent of print volume and 0.6 run length. 0.4

0.2

VOC Emission (Grams) Per Impression 0.0 500 3000 Press Run Length (No. of Prints)

Figure 11. VOC Emissions Distribution in the Lithographic and Digital Presses showing VOC emissions per usable impression

Ink Type Short Run Usage (g) Expected Long Run Usage (g)* Actual Long Run Usage (g) Difference (g)**

Cyan 75.77 454.62 377.47 +77.15

Black 33.67 202.02 241.65 -39.63

Yellow 37.70 226.20 507.57 -281.37

Magenta 96.18 577.08 394.13 +182.95 * Values extrapolated from the short run results. ** Difference between actual long run usage and expected long run usage. Negative values indicate the usage of ink in excess of expected usage calculated based on short run usage values.

Table 13. Analysis of Ink Consumption in the Digital Press

26 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Analysis of the Results

6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“Ê œ>̈˜}Ê-œṎœ˜Ê1Ãi 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“ʜ՘Ì>ˆ˜Ê-œṎœ˜Ê1Ãi ™ää 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“ʘŽÊ1Ãi 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“Ê*>Ìi“>Žˆ˜}ÊEÊ i>˜ˆ˜}Ê"«iÀ>̈œ˜Ã nää

Çää

Èää

xää

{ää

Îää

6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜Ê­À>“î Óää

£ää

ä xää Îäää *ÀiÃÃÊ,՘Êi˜}Ì Ê­ œ°ÊœvÊ*Àˆ˜Ìî

Figure 12. VOC Emissions Distribution in the Lithographic Press

6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“Ê“>}ˆ˜}Ê1Ãi Îxää 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“Ê“>}ˆ˜}Ê
}i˜Ì 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜ÊvÀœ“ʘŽÊ1Ãi Îäää

Óxää

Óäää

£xää

6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜Ê­À>“î £äää

xää

ä xää Îäää *ÀiÃÃÊ,՘Êi˜}Ì Ê­ œ°ÊœvÊ*Àˆ˜Ìî Figure 13. VOC Emissions Distribution in the Digital Press

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

HAP Emissions (g) Per Usable Impression HAP Emissions (g) Per Usable Impression 0.00 500 3000 Press Run Length (No. of Prints)

Figure 14. HAP Emissions Distribution in the Lithographic Press

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 27 Analysis of the Results

Óx œ˜}Ê,՘ - œÀÌÊ,՘ Óä

£x

£ä

x 6" Ê “ˆÃȜ˜Ê­À>“î ä

‡x ˜ŽÊ7>ÃÌi *>ÌiÊ7>ÃÌi ˆ˜iÀÊ7>ÃÌi *>«iÀÊ7>ÃÌi œÕ˜Ì>ˆ˜Ê7>ÃÌi i>˜ˆ˜}Ê7>ÃÌi *>Ìi“>Žˆ˜}Ê7>ÃÌi

Figure 15a. Environmental Cost Distribution in the Lithographic Press

ä°Óä œ˜}Ê,՘ - œÀÌÊ,՘ ä°£x

ä°£ä

ä°äx ˜ÛˆÀœ˜“i˜Ì>Ê œÃÌÊ­f® ä°ää

‡ä°äx *>«iÀÊ7>ÃÌi *ÀiÃÃÊ,i«>ˆÀÊ7>ÃÌi 7>ÃÌiÊ >Ìi}œÀÞ Figure 15b: Environmental Cost Distribution in the Digital Press

0.06 Digital Offset 0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01 Enviornmental Cost (Cents) Per UI 0.00 Short Run Long Run

Run Length (Usable Impressions)

Figure 16. Environmental Cost (Cents) Per Usable Impression for Offset and Digital

28 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Analysis of the Results

Lost Material Value In an overall assessment of lost material value 100 (LMV), the digital process proved to be more Long Run 90 Short Run expensive compared with the lithographic 80 process for both the long and the short runs. This is due to the costs associated with blanket, 70 impression film, and photo imaging plate (PIP) 60 replacements. The usage of these materials in 50 digital printing increases with the run length, 40 giving rise to the steep gradient in Figure 18. 30 From Figure 17, it can be seen that on the lith- 20 ographic press, the LMVs related to consum-

Lost Material Value (Dollars) Lost Material Value 10 ables generally do not change with run length, 0 with the exception of the coating solution. Total Ink LMV for the lithographic press is essentially Paper Plates Liner Coating Fountain Cleaning Solution invariant with press run length. On the other Platemaking Solution Materials hand, the digital press shows a steep increase in Solutions total LMV as run length increases, and is over- Figure 17. Lost Material Value Analysis in the Lithographic Press all significantly higher than the lithographic press for each run (Figure 18). This is one factor 2500 Long Run which should be considered when evaluating the economic and environmental viability of Short Run digital and lithographic technologies. 2000 Health and Safety Impact 1500 Air and noise monitoring results obtained from both presses indicate a safe working environ- ment, as the exposure limits are well below 1000 the limits prescribed by the regulatory agen- cies. However, there is a significant differ- ence in overall VOC emission levels with 500 Total Lost Material Value (Dollars) Lost Material Value Total the lithographic press showing 1.6 times the VOC emissions as the digital press. The main 0 contributing factor for this difference is the Offset Digital cleaning operation that takes place in lithog- Figure 18. Total Lost Material Value Analysis Comparison raphy after every run, which has the potential to expose the press operators directly to the VOC source. 90 Digital Offset Noise levels in both processes are within accept- 80 able limits, except for the peak noise level 70 (147.7 dB) in the lithographic press, which 60 crossed the 140 dB OSHA limit during the operation. The peak level was not exceeded by 50 the digital press. 40

The factors contributing to the overall health 30 and safety impact differ significantly with 20 these two technologies, involving factors LMV (Dollars) Per Usable Impression 10 which cannot be directly compared. An initial comparison health and safety evaluation was 0 300 5000 conducted but a full safety assessment was out of scope for this project. Run Length (No. of Prints) Figure 19. Lost Material Value per usable impression for Offset and Digital

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 29 Analysis of the Results

The Process Following this preparatory work, two check- This study has provided a framework for an lists should be constructed—pre-run and post- environmental evaluation methodology, and has run measurements. Personnel involved should highlighted areas for consideration in compar- be fully aware of the unusual requirements and ing different printing technologies for over- should be prepared for time-sensitive measure- all environmental impact. A flow chart of the ments. Air monitoring equipment should be comparison process is outlined in Figure 20. set up well in advance and a trial run should be The material flow diagrams for the two presses conducted to evaluate sensitivity. are shown in Appendix E. During the press run, the timing of all motors The first step is to observe a normal press oper- and power-driven equipment elements should ation, and to derive a process flow diagram be noted. A log should be made of all activi- with all the prepress, press and postpress steps. ties, and a policy should be in place for non- For each of these operations all the chemicals routine events. In case of a common situation and materials used are listed, and the Material that interrupts the press operation, it is help- Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and other regulatory ful to know in advance whether the experi- information is collected. Energy sources used ment should be aborted or whether the data and the power ratings of motors, etc., are identi- collection should incorporate such real-world fied. From this information, a listing of all inputs events. The temperature and relative humidity and outputs for each process stage is constructed, of the pressroom should be monitored as this forming the basis of the material flow diagrams, can affect the mass of paper, solvent evapora- and the mass balance calculation strategy. tion rates, etc. Following the press run, print- ed output should be weighed/counted, waste Secondly, metrics and measurements to be should be fully evaluated before disposal, and tracked are identified, and appropriate measure- the effect of any environmental changes should ment methods are planned. It is useful to plan be accounted for. Decisions should be made and monitor measurements on press trials prior in advance as to how to accommodate recy- to the mass balance experiment. This plan- clables such as waste paper and printing plates ning includes calibration and sensitivity stud- (which can be positive or negative in mass ies, requiring an estimate of the parameter balance calculations). Finally, the cleaning and ranges anticipated. In some cases the range of maintenance steps associated with the press measurement is below the detectability limits runs should be evaluated and measured. Where of instruments, in which case data must be appropriate, a portion of non-routine or peri- collected over several press runs and then back- odic procedures needs to be accounted into the calculated. Accessibility to material consump- “overhead” of each press run. tion rates presents a considerable challenge where containers and pumps are hard to reach, and where material additions are made periodi- cally rather than for each press run. In general, the simpler the method the better, as during the experiment many measurements have to be made. In this study successful measurements were made using pre-weighed paper plates and plastic bags, and pre-calibrated disposable dip sticks for volumes. Tubing cut to simulate inac- cessible lines was used to measure line volumes.

30 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Analysis of the Results

Diagram process: List chemicals and materials used per process step. List energy sources/units used.

List all inputs (resources used) and outputs (waste and product).

Explore methods of measurement for all measurements to be taken. Check calibrations and sensitivity.

Prepare two checklists: 1. Pre-run measurements 2. Post-run measurements

Discuss process with pressroom personnel—prepare for time-sensitive measurements.

Take all pre-run measurements (e.g. prepare sealed weighed bags for cleaning rags, etc.). Prepare for air quality monitoring.

Start the press run. Note timing of power usage. Conduct air quality monitoring sampling.

Monitor run and prepare for non-routine events. Make full records of all activities and events.

Take post-run measurements. Weigh the printed output and monitor for mass changed due to drying and humidity.

Figure 20. Mass Balance Analysis Methodology

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 31 32 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Conclusion

Based on an overall evaluation of the results by using alternative ink or fountain solution obtained in this study, for the two specific formulations to further mitigate emission levels. presses evaluated, the HP Indigo 3000 press shows overall a lower resource consumption, The parameters considered for evaluating waste generation, and environmental impact for complete environmental health and safety a 500-impression print run compared with the aspects and impacts associated with lithograph- Heidelberg Speedmaster 74 lithographic offset ic and digital printing processes were insuf- press. As run length increases, the lithographic ficient and/or beyond the scope of this study. press shows strengths, specifically in the area of However, the study uncovered parameters that VOC emissions and materials consumption per can be used in further research. One of these usable impression. The environmental impacts parameters is energy use. Energy consump- of the digital press operations vary significantly tion is important from environmental and cost with press run length, which is generally not optimization standpoints. In order to evaluate the case for the lithographic press. the energy requirements in both these print- ing processes, all energy-consuming units, such The prime factor for VOC emissions in the as press motors, hydraulic oil pumps, conveyor digital technology (and the only significant belt, infrared light bulb, cooling motors, fans, EHS concern) is the use of imaging oil. This platesetter lights, etc., need to be identified and factor could potentially be removed with their ratings calculated By measuring the opera- adjustments in ink formulation and drying tion time for each unit the overall energy usage techniques. For long print runs this VOC may be calculated as a product of unit energy factor could be a significant consideration in consumption (watts per second) and integrat- selecting an environmentally responsible print- ed operation time. Energy efficiency metrics ing technology. In comparison, lithographic could then be assessed by relating total energy VOC emissions could be improved signifi- consumption to print run length or mass of cantly with the redesign of the ink and foun- materials usage. tain solution systems. Inks with minimal VOC contents and the use of waterless offset litho- There is also room for a more comprehensive graphic presses have taken the industry into a study of safety measures. Comparing these new era of low VOC emissions; however, many two presses based on safety considerations is legacy presses with emissions such as those a complex task, and only a brief overview of measured in this study are likely to be in use in selected factors was conducted in this study. for decades to come. However, a safety index can be constructed based on a range of relevant, ranked param- There are several limitations to this study. Only eters. These parameters could include frequency one of many available digital technologies was of access to a specific hazard zone, severity of involved. Systems using solid powder toners potential injury, toxicity, potential number of rather than liquid ink systems could show employees affected, and so on. significant advantages in overall emissions levels compared with the liquid ink technologies. The intention of this study was to present Based on the offset lithographic data set gener- considerations and methods that could guide ated here, further insights could be gained printers towards a quantitative evaluation

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 33 Conclusion

process to assess the relative environmental impact of available technologies. This is an area rich with potential for further research, both in terms of depth with the development of more precise evaluation metrics, and in terms of breadth by extension to a range of printing technologies.

34 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) References

Business Development Advisory, Inc. (BDA). (2003). The effect of new printing technologies on the performance requirements for paper substrates. Commissioned by Graphic Arts Marketing Information Service (GAMIS) (Alexandria, VA) of GATF/PIA.

Cahill, V. (n.d.). Introduction to digital printing technology. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http:// www.techexchange.com/thelibrary/tchnlgy.pdf

Fleming, M. W. (2004). The new realities: Digital printing review and forecast. Digital Publishing Solutions. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.dpsmagazine.com/content/ ContentCT.asp?P=101

Graphical, Paper and Media Union (UK). (n.d.). Occupational asthma in the printing industry. Health and Safety. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://www.gpmu.org.uk/hs/hsasthmaprint. html

Jones, G. (2001, January 21). Re: VOCs control in lithographic printing. printreg. Message posted to http://www.pneac.org/listserv/printreg/0101/0101reg23.html

Printing Industry Advisory Committee. (2002, March). Skin problems in the printing industry. London: Health and Safety Executive. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/ pubns/iacl101.pdf

Romano, F. (2004). An investigation into printing industry trends (PICRM-2004-01). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, Printing Industry Center.

Romano, F. (2003, December). The state of printing in the United States. Electronic Publishing, 27(12).

Rothenberg, S., Toribio, R., & Becker, M. (2002, September). Environmental management in litho- graphic printing (PICRM-2002-07). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, Printing Industry Center.

The Print Extension, Inc. (n.d.). Digital printing: Liquid toner. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://www.printext.com/printing_tips_dgtl_prnt1_d.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). 2001 economic census. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://www. census.gov/csd/susb/usalli01.xls

U.S. Department of Labor. (1999). Table Z-1: Limits for air contaminants [1910.1000]. OSHA. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_ table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 35 36 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix A 3 . 4 0 1. 8 5 4 . 9 1 1. 79 11. 9 2 22. 44 69 . 73 93 .1 7 1 3 . 8 0 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1.0 1.0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Factor Em i ss on 67 . 94 36 . 9 0 98 .1 3 3 5. 8 2 22. 44 69 . 73 93 .1 7 1 3 . 8 0 2 38 . 3 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC Total: Total: Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 9 .1 4 8 . 78 8 . 3 0 8 . 9 2 9 .1 7 8 .00 8 . 34 Product Product i ght Un i t We Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 1. 38 0. 7 2 1. 8 1 0. 7 1 2.21 6 .5 7 0. 39 VOC Content g g g g g g g Un i t 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 3 00 97 . 36 8 5.0 4 Usage Mater i al Inks: Black Ink Cyan Ink Ink Yellow Magenta Ink Fountain Solutions: Founta i n Concentrate Founta i n Subst i tute Coating Solution: c a a b d b SN 1 2 3 Potential and Actual VOC Emission Calculations(Lithographic Press—Short Run)

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 37 Appendix A 4 1.22 36 . 77 3 0. 9 5 2 9 . 3 1 1 4 .2 6 37 .10 10 8 . 9 5 368 . 64 4 12.21 677 .15 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 Factor Em i ss on 4 1.22 36 . 77 3 0. 9 5 5 8 . 6 2 2 8 .51 37 .10 10 8 . 9 5 737 .2 8 8 2 4 . 1 1 3 15. 7 5 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC lb/ga lb/ga lb/ga Total: Total: Total: Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 9 . 34 9 .2 4 8 . 67 6 . 67 7 . 4 2 6 .50 7 . 4 0 i ght We Product Un i t Product % lb/ga Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 6 . 39 6 . 3 5 94 .2 1.015 0. 9 05 1.01 8 5. 38 5 VOC Content g g g g g Un i t 77 0 8 0. 5 2 9 .1 8 39 . 38 379 . 68 38 2. 73 2 64 .1 6 Usage - Mater i al Platemaking Solutions: Developer Solut i on Replen i sher Solut i on Plate F i n sher Cleaning solutions applied using rags: Solvent Plate Desen s i t zer L i thol ne Cleaning solutions applied without using rags: Inkote Formulae: un i t we ght (lb/gal) Potent i al VOC Em ss on (g) = [Mater usage x content (lb/gal)] / Product Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) = Potent al em x factor c c a a a b b SN 4 5 6 1 2 Potential and Actual VOC Emission Calculations(Lithographic Press—Short Run) Continuted

38 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix A 4 . 7 2 2.5 6 6 . 8 1 2. 49 1 6 .55 2 8 . 4 1 84 .5 3 8 2. 0 112. 94 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1.0 1.0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Factor Em i ss on 94 . 37 51.25 49 . 7 5 2 8 . 4 1 84 .5 3 8 2. 0 33 0. 98 112. 94 1 36 . 3 0 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC Total: Total: Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 9 .1 4 8 . 78 8 . 3 0 8 . 9 2 9 .1 7 8 .00 8 . 34 i ght We Product Un i t Product Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 1. 38 0. 7 2 1. 8 1 0. 7 1 2.21 6 .5 7 0. 39 VOC Content g g g g g g g Un i t 6 25 6 25 6 25 6 25 1 8 00 11 8 .01 10 3 .0 8 Usage Mater i al Inks: Black i nk Cyan Ink Ink Yellow Magenta Ink Fountain Solutions: Founta i n Concentrate Founta i n Subst i tute Coating Solution: c a a b d b SN 1 2 3 Potential and Actual VOC Emission Calculations(Lithographic Press—Long Run)

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 39 Appendix A 4 1.22 36 . 77 3 0. 9 5 2 9 . 3 1 1 4 .2 6 37 .10 10 8 . 9 5 368 . 64 4 12.21 77 0.55 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 Factor Em i ss on 4 1.22 36 . 77 3 0. 9 5 5 8 . 6 2 2 8 .51 37 .10 10 8 . 9 5 8 2 4 . 1 737 .2 8 1 497 .1 8 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC Total: Total: Total: Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 9 . 34 9 . 4 2 8 . 67 6 . 67 7 . 4 2 6 .50 7 . 4 0 i ght We Product Un i t Product % Un i t lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal lb/gal 6 . 39 6 . 3 5 94 .2 1.015 0. 9 05 1.01 8 5. 38 5 VOC Content g g g g g g Un i t 77 0 9 .1 8 8 0. 5 39 . 38 379 . 68 38 2. 73 2 64 .1 6 Usage - Mater i al Platemaking Solutions Developer Solut i on Replen i sher Solut i on Plate F i n sher Cleaning solutions applied using rags: Solvent Plate Desen s i t zer L i thol ne Cleaning solutions applied without using rags: Inkote Formulae: un i t we ght (lb/gal) Potent i al VOC Em ss on (g) = [Mater usage x content (lb/gal)] / Product Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) = Potent al em x factor c c a a a b b SN 4 5 6 1 2

40 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix A 2. 76 25.25 5 6 . 83 2 6 . 39 7 2.1 4 1 8 0. 6 2 4 5.50 4 2 8 . 87 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Factor Em i ss on 2. 76 25.25 5 6 . 83 2 6 . 39 7 2.1 4 1 8 0. 6 2 4 5.50 4 2 8 . 87 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: Total: Un i t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A i ght We Product Un i t Product % % % % % % Un i t 7 5 7 5 7 0 7 5 9 5 88 VOC Content g g g g g g Un i t 37 . 7 3 .1 4 33 . 67 7 5. 77 96 .1 8 25 8 .5 3 Usage Mater i al Inks: Black Ink Cyan Ink Ink Yellow Magenta Ink Imaging Oil: Imaging Agent: c a b d SN 1 2 3 Potential and Actual VOC Emission Calculations(Digital Press—Short Run)

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 41 Appendix A 1 6 . 1 8 1.2 4 2 83 .10 3 55. 0 2 9 5. 6 0 1115.2 4 1 88 2.00 3 01 . 84 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Factor Em i ss on 1 6 . 1 8 1.2 4 2 83 .10 3 55. 0 2 9 5. 6 0 1115.2 4 3 01 . 84 1 88 2.00 Em i ss on (g) Potent i al VOC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: Total: Un i t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A i ght We Product Un i t Product % % % % % % Un i t

7 5 7 5 7 0 7 5 9 5 88 VOC Content g g g g g g Un i t 1 8 . 87 2 4 1. 6 5 377 . 47 50 7 .5 394 .1 3 Usage 1 98 1.00 Mater i al Inks: Black Ink Cyan Ink Ink Yellow Magenta Ink Imaging Oil: Imaging Agent: Formulae: Potent i al VOC Em ss on (g) = Mater usage x content (%) / 100 Actual VOC Em i ss on (g) = Potent al em x factor c a b d SN 1 2 3 1 2

Potential and Actual VOC Emission Calculations(Digital Press—Long Run)

42 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix B 74 . 4 1 4 . 6 0 46 . 77 6 1. 37 1 7 . 0 5 6 . 7 0 Actual HAP Actual HAP Em i ss on (g) Em i ss on (g) 1 1 1 1 Factor Factor Em i ss on Em i ss on 74 . 4 1 4 . 6 0 46 . 77 6 1. 37 1 7 . 0 5 6 . 7 0 Em i ss on (g) Em i ss on (g) Potent i al HAP Potent i al HAP % % % % Total: Total: Un i t Un i t 15 55 15 55 HAP Content HAP Content g g g g Un i t Un i t 97 . 36 8 5.0 4 11 8 .01 10 3 .0 8 Usage Usage HAP HAP 2-Butoxy Ethanol 2-Butoxy Ethanol 2-Butoxy Ethanol 2-Butoxy Ethanol Mater i al Mater i al Founta i n Concentrate Founta i n Subst tute Founta i n Concentrate Founta i n Subst tute Formulae: 1 Potent i al HAP Em ss on (g) = Mater usage x content (%) / 100 2 Actual HAP Em i ss on (g) = Potent al em x factor Potential and Actual HAP Emission Calculations(Lithographic Press—Short Run) Potential and Actual HAP Emission Calculations(Lithographic Press—Long Run)

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 43 44 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix C

Waste Disposal Costs for Lithographic and Digital Presses Lithographic Press

Unit Waste Disposal SN Waste Category Disposal Cost ($) Unit Cost ($)

1 Paper Waste:

a Waste Paper $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

b Makeready Waste -$3000 / 200 tons -$ 0.016* kg

2 Ink Waste: $1000 per 55 gal drum $4.563 kg

3 Fountain Waste:

a Fountain Concentrate $1000 per 55 gal drum $4.563 kg

b Fountain Substitute $1000 per 55 gal drum $4.563 kg

c Wastewater $1000 per 55 gal drum $4.563 kg

4 Press Cleaning Waste:

Waste Blanket Cleaning a Paper $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

b Waste Rags $14 / 100 rags $0.14 rag

Aqueous Coating 5 Waste: 0 0 N/A

6 Platemaking Waste:

a Developer Solution 0 0 N/A

b Replenisher Solution 0 0 N/A

c Plate Finisher 0 0 N/A

7 Liner Waste: $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

8 Plate Waste: $0.55 / pound $1.209 kg * Negative value indicates recycled value.

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 45 Appendix C

Waste Disposal Costs for Lithographic and Digital Presses Digital Press

SN Waste Category Disposal Cost ($) Unit Waste Disposal Cost ($) Unit

1 Paper Waste:

a Waste Paper $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

b Makeready Waste -$3000 / 200 tons -$ 0.016* kg

2 Press Maintenance Waste:

a Blanket Waste $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

b Metal Stripes $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

Impression Film c Waste $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg

d PIP Plate Waste $165.77 / 2 tons $0.091 kg * Negative value indicates recycled value.

46 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix D

Material Costs for Lithographic and Digital Presses

Lithographic Press SN Resource Category Material Cost ($) Unit Cost ($) Unit

1 Paper: $60 / 1000 sheets (31kg) $1.933 kg

2 Inks: $21.79 / 5 pounds $9.608 kg

3 Fountain Solutions:

a Fountain Concentrate $16.25 per gal. $3.894 kg

b Fountain Substitute $16.70 per gal. $4.585 kg

c Water minimal minimal minimal

4 Press Cleaning Materials:

a Blanket Cleaning Paper $13.30 for 10 pound roll $2.926 kg

b Rags Recycled N/A N/A

5 Aqueous Coating Solution: $2.70 for a pound $5.947 kg

6 Platemaking Chemistry:

a Developer Solution $244.86 for 5 gallon $9.618 kg

b Replenisher Solution $269.35 for 5 gallon $10.496 kg

c Plate Finisher $179.27 for 5 gallon $7.584 kg

7 Liners: $40 for 100 numbers $0.40 Count

8 Plates: 13.56 for a plate $13.56 Count

Digital Press SN Resource Category Material Cost ($) Unit Cost ($) Unit

1 Paper: $35 for 1000 sheets (16kg) $2.188 kg

2 Press Maintenance Materials:

a Blanket $3200 per 8 pack 400 Count

b Metal Stripe 0 N/A N/A

c Impression Film $16.83 for 10 1.683 Count

d PIP Plate $3600 per 6 pack 600 Count

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 47 48 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix E

Material Flow Diagram For the Offset Lithographic Press Prepress Process

Electronic Data Image Files

Plates Platemaking

Pre-Baking

VOC HAP

Developer

Replenisher Plate Developing

Finisher

Waste Developer Waste Finisher

Waste Replenisher

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 49 Appendix E

VOC

Dust HAP

Fountain Solution Cleaning Solutions

Blanket Cleaning Paper Coating Solution

Paper Powder

Ink Liner

Rags

Print Process Plates Usable Printed Impressions

Waste Rags Waste Liners

Waste Blanket Cleaning Paper Waste Ink

Waste Fountain Solution Waste Paper

Waste Coating Solution Waste Plates

50 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix E

Material Flow Diagram in Digital Press

Dust VOC

Electronic Data Imaging Oil Impression Paper

Imaging Agent Blanket

Paper PIP

Ink

Image Files Print Process Usable Printed Impressions

Waste PIP Waste Paper

Waste Ink

Water Impression Paper

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 51 52 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix F

Details of Ink and Chemicals Used

Materials Lithographic Press Digital Press

Paper

Brand: RIS Paper RIS Paper

Sheet Size: 17.5 inch x 23 inch 12 inch x 18 inch

Basis Weight: 119 gsm 119 gsm

Finish: Luna Gloss Luna Digital Gloss

Printing Inks

Sun Chemicals Corporation HP Indigo Ink mark 3.6 for 3000 press, NATURALGLO QS PRO ma CYAN Brand: PRO MAGENTA NATURALITH YELLOW OSSF BLACK

Petroleum HC >75% Cyan Ink Formulation not available C.I.P.B. 15:3 No. 74160 Resin <3% C.I.P.G. 7 No. 74260 Resin <1%

Petroleum HC >70% Yellow Ink Formulation not available C.I.P.Y. 185 No. 56290 Resin <3% C.I.P.Y. 139 No. 56298 Resin <1%

Petroleum HC >75% Magenta Ink Formulation not available C.I.P.R. 146 No. 12486 Resin <5% C.I.P.R. 122 No. 73915 Resin <1%

Petroleum HC >75% Black Ink Formulation not available C.I.P.B. 7 Resin <4% C.I.P.B. 61 No. 42765:1 Resin <1%

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 53 Appendix F

Details of Ink and Chemicals Used Continued

Materials Lithographic Press Digital Press

Platemaking Solutions

Brand: Kodak Polychrome Graphics Not Applicable

Water (70-80), Ethylene Glycol (10), Po- tassium Silicate (1-5), Potassium Hydrox- MX1813 Developer – ide (1-5), Tripotassium Orthophosphate (1-5)

Water (70-80), Ethylene Glycol (10), Potassium Silicate (1-5), Potassium Hy- MX1919 Regenerator droxide (1-5), Tripotassium Orthophos- – phate (1-5) Tetrasodium Ethylenediamine Tetraacetate (1-5)

Water (85-90), Dextrin (5-10), Amino-tris Plate Finisher 850S/US/C (Methylenephosphonic Acid) <1, Boric – Acid <1, Isothiazolin derivatives <1

Fountain Solutions

Brand: Printer’s Service Not Applicable

Magnesium Nitrate (10-20), 2-Bu- Fountain Concentrate toxyehtanol (10-20), Ethylene Glycol (10- – 20), 1-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (1-10)

2-Butoxyehtanol (50-60), Fountain Substitute – Propylene Glycol (20-30)

Cleaning Solutions—Solvent

Brand: Varn Products Not Applicable

Petroleum Naphtha – Aromatic (8) Formulation – Petroleum Naphtha –Aliphatic (90)

Cleaning Solutions—Inkote

Brand: Anchor Lithkemko Not Applicable

Heptane (25-35), A-46 Propellant (25-35), Formulation – solvent 140 (5-15), Petroleum HC (15-25)

54 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix F

Details of Ink and Chemicals Used Continued

Materials Lithographic Press Digital Press

Cleaning Solutions—Plate Cleaner

Brand: Kodak Polychrome Graphics Not Applicable

Stoddard Solvent (60-65), Water (20-25), Glycerol (5-10), Phosphoric Acid (<2), So- Formulation – dium Phosphate – dibasic (1-5), Polyvinyl Pyrrolidon (1-5)

Cleaning Solutions—Plate Desensitizer

Brand: Anchor Lithkemko Not Applicable

Formulation Mineral Spirits 66/3 Aliphatic HC (85-100) –

Aqueous Coating

Brand: Bria Graphics Not Applicable

Imaging Oil

Brand Not Applicable Indigo Electronic Brand: Not Applicable Printing System Ltd. Petroleum HC (>95)

Imaging Agent

Indigo Electronic Printing System Ltd. Brand: Not Applicable Petroleum HC (>88)

Plate

Kodak Polychrome Graphics Brand: UV and IR Sensitive, Negative-Working, Not Applicable Thermal Polymer Plate (Aluminum)

Blanket

Brand: Not Applicable Indigo US Eprint Blanket

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 55 56 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01) Appendix G

List of Acronyms

Acronym Description

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

dB Decibel

EHS Environmental Health and Safety

EMS Environmental Management System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

g Grams

GATF Graphic Arts Technical Foundation

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HP Hewlett Packard

Hr:Min:Sec Hour:Minute:Second

kg Kilograms

lb/gal Pounds per gallon

LMV Lost Material Value

mg/m3 Milligrams per metric cube

N/A Not Applicable

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Association

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit

pH Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration

PIP Photo Imaging Plate

TPY Tons Per Year

TWA Time Weighted Average

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

A Comparative Study of the Environmental Aspects of Lithographic and Digital Printing Processes 57 58 Kadam, Evans, and Rothenberg (PICRM-2005-01)

Rochester Institute of Technology College of Imaging Arts and Sciences 55 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 Phone: (585) 475-2733 http://print.rit.edu