Are water based inks REALLY more environmentally friendly?

[bkd001]

Are water based inks REALLY more environmentally friendly?
All that I have read is no, they are not. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hell, even Franmars soy based products contain a label that says they are known to contain ingredients that have been know to cause cancer by the state of California.
If it isn't more environmentally friendly, why are printers continuing to sale it as a greener alternative?

[stitch101]

A few facts about water based inks and emulsion

1)Water-based Ink Systems
Water-based inks are defined as those that utilize water as the main solvent. That does
not mean, however that water is the only solvent. It is significant to note that many
water base inks contain �co-solvents� which may even be petroleum based solvents.
The reason these co-solvents are used varies, but one of the key reasons is to
decrease the time and heat necessary to cure the ink film on the fabric.

2)Water-based ink is also much more aggressive than plastisol towards the emulsion that
is used to create the screen stencil. Emulsion manufacturers all make �water-resistant�
emulsions that must be used for water-based printing. If standard emulsion is used, the
water-based ink will destroy the stencil by melting the emulsion is as little as a few
minutes. Even when the proper emulsion is used, screen life tends to be much less
with water-based printing than it is for plastisol printing.

3)Water-based Ink Cleanup
There is a common misconception that because water can be used for cleaning
screens, squeegees and tools, that the waste water can just be discharged in the
sewer. However, the water-based ink is not just water. There are pigments, binders,
thickeners, and sometimes, even co-solvents in the ink residue. Screen cleaning
systems that can at least capture the solids are still recommended.
In addition, water-based that has not been catalyzed can be returned to its container for
reuse. If the ink has been catalyzed, it should be considered hazardous waste unless it
can be dried out (all water and solvent removed) before discarding. If it cannot be dried,
it should be disposed of as hazardous waste.

Here is some more reading if you want to kill some time and get some more factshttp://www.pneac.org/sheets/screen/Plastisolvwaterbase.pdf

[Duke of York]

No, water based inks are not more environmentally friendly than plastisol.

The history of water based inks, was as a replacement or solvent based inks. This primarily involved paper printing. When printing a product, such as newspapers, the ink is predominantly a solvent and is consumed by the barrel. Each gallon of solvent was released directly into the air as a result of the drying process. An example, 250,000 pounds of 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE, 12,000 pounds of MEK and 10,000 pounds of TOLUENE in a year. In this context, water based could be debated to be more environmentally friendly.

Separate from green, another big issue with printing was "food safety". Most of the soy products came out of the need for food safety.

Since the printing industry had gotten such a bad name for the use of solvents and unsafe pigments (lead), people came to believe that "water based" and "soy" must be better. As the people trying to sell these products, are in the business to sell the products, no attempt is made to educate that the products are not better.

The curring of plastisol is a chemical reaction, not a matter of any solvent. To keep plastisol and other plastics soft, phthalate were added. Phalate are believed, by some, to be hazardous. This issue is not unique to screen printing, nor is screen printing even high on the list of concern. To alleviate the concern, phthalate have been banned. For a while, there was a concern that shirts printed for children under the age of 12 would need special testing, but as far as i understand the guideline, a shirt would not be classified as a "toy".

A ?children?s toy? is a ?consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.? Examples include bath toys, pool toys, toddler wading pools, dolls, action figures, costumes, masks, and balloons. While ordinary books are not generally regarded as toys, certain novelty books ? such as plastic books marketed as bath toys or books incorporating sounds ? may be considered a ?children?s toy.?

fred

[ZooCity]

I'd say no.  It's just a matter of choosing yer poison.  Plastisols have great advantages in terms of their longevity, ease of safe cleanup and ability to print with very minimal waste.  It's just that nobody likes vinyl which is understandable- it releases dioxins when made, is a bitch to recycle post-consumer and is persistent in the environment. 

It also really seriously depends on the recipe used. Some plastisols, and really all plastics, are going to be a lot better than others depending on how they are produced.

What I've never got is why or how water-bourne acrylic solids are safer/greener than  curable pvc.  I think they probably aren't, it's just a belief consumers have from confusing other products that probably are safer/greener when used in a water-based formulation, like glue for example and it sounds nice. 

I know that there is rising consumer demand for "green" products right now but I think we need to be careful as an industry not to cater to misguided demands.  When this latest green fad passes I'll still be printing with the most sustainable methods I can find to produce quality prints as will a lot of others.  Rather than showing everyone we're "certified" by this or that private organization or waving around buzz-word technologies I tend to simply do my homework as best I can, make the best choice available and educate my clients on my choices when they ask. 

It gets old splitting hairs on how many dioxins say are released by plastisol production v. waterbased production when the overwhelming source of dioxin release is actually landfill fires and burn barrells in people's backyards.  Maybe I could get "greener" ink from a special company in India instead of from Seattle but then I'm shipping it across the friggin globe.  There's a point of diminishing returns with a lot of it and, in the end, modern consumerism is not going to ever be environmentally friendly, we can only try and mitigate the worst of it. 

[studog79]

Plus the amount of energy used to properly cure water base is much greater than plastisol since water base should be in the dryer a minimum of 90 seconds.

[Preston]

known to contain ingredients that have been know to cause cancer by the state of California.

Everything is known to cause cancer in California. More things cause cancer in California then any other state. One day the light bulb will go off "bing!" and they will figure out that it is living in California that has been known to cause cancer.

[ZooCity]

and some Californians can be cancerous too!

[tpitman]

For a while, there was a concern that shirts printed for children under the age of 12 would need special testing, but as far as i understand the guideline, a shirt would not be classified as a "toy".

A ?children?s toy? is a ?consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.? Examples include bath toys, pool toys, toddler wading pools, dolls, action figures, costumes, masks, and balloons. While ordinary books are not generally regarded as toys, certain novelty books ? such as plastic books marketed as bath toys or books incorporating sounds ? may be considered a ?children?s toy.?

fred

I think that debate is still up in the air. Like most "do-good" laws the government enacts, there are always the unintended consequenses that emerge. Part of the new consumer protection laws concerning lead content put the kybosh on smaller ATVs and dirt bikes designed for children, based on the fact that the battery had lead in it. A technicality, but, as I recall, until a dealer in California said fuk 'em, I'm selling them anyway, and the issue came to a head, it was one of those unintended consequenses. The business about children's clothing and the necessity of testing for phthalates and lead content has been postponed until next month (the last I'd read), but as of last August, you're supposed to be affixing a permanent tracking number, code, icon, or whatever to every article of clothing designed for children under 12 (I think that's the limit) and maintaining records of what was used in the production of that particular article, so that in the event of a recall, content could be determined.
While toys from China are the real culprit, and at the bottom of it all the real reason for enactment, like the lead in a motorcycle battery, we get caught up in the net because the law is a little too vague and overarching in it's address of "lead and phthalates" in anything a kid could conceivably put in their mouth.
There's another thread in the appropriately-named forum with more details on that consumer protection law.

[Duke of York]

In the case of a company i worked for, which had plant in California, California traded one job for each drum of MEK they eliminated. Ultimatly, the pollution dropped to zero, with the closing of the plant. Success??

fred