| |
| | |

Printer Forum   

 Forgot password?
 register
Search
View: 1980|Reply: 17

Glycols & their differences

[Copy link]

Post time: 2013-2-24 17:04:04 |Show all posts
Looking into MSDS & trying to decipher which glycols if you have no option other then  to use them are:
1) Safest
2) Work the best.
I'm trying to compare Cas# 7580-85-0 2-tert-Butoxyethanol  and  Cas# 111-76-2 2-Butoxyethanol
So far it would seem 7580-85-0 is the safest of the two, but I can't find any info that would indicate it would work better then 111-76-2.
Any info would be appreciated.

Post time: 2013-2-25 18:01:56 |Show all posts
If you run a clean facility you don't need to worry about this and will able to sell the property at any time.  The next links have some information.
http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/41/sb/publications/esa.pdf
Environmental Health & Safety Assessments - from Phase I's to Compliance

Post time: 2013-2-25 16:36:34 |Show all posts
Messrs:  Green Printer, Sustainable and Lukew,
I applaud you all via this forum - for raising awareness about inherent risks of chemicals used in the lithographic process  and with 5000 views - I feel that your postings are becoming - repetitive
COMMENTS:
1) Isopropanol (IPA) enriched FS were first introduced during the late 1940's
2) Many UK companies I worked for during the 1980's, began changing over to Alcohol free FS concentrate.
3) YES - we were aware of inherent Glycol risks - but we needed to Print
4) Very few chemicals successfully mimic IPA desirable properties that are fundamental for todays high speed presses.
Regards,  Alois

Post time: 2013-2-25 15:33:06 |Show all posts
The Society of Actuaries have many articles on chemical and environmental issues.  Go to the quick searh and enter environmental.
The next link is from 1995 on environmental issues
http://www.soa.org/library/newslette...2-anderson.pdf
SOA - Search Results: environmental

Post time: 2013-2-25 14:30:13 |Show all posts
An interesting read on glycols.
Published in 1993.  Very relevant today.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/ST_rpts/tox026.pdf
As I have said before this info is quite easy to locate.  The chemical suppliers have this info or at least they should.  A good actuary would have have this information also.

Post time: 2013-2-25 13:21:22 |Show all posts
CAS 5131-66-8 = Aics search, Xi R36/38

Post time: 2013-2-25 11:50:07 |Show all posts
What do you think about 5131-66-8?  There are a lot of products on the market that use this solvent (I make a few of them) that have met with a good degree of success.  This is one of the solvents ARCO promoted as a safe alternative to ethylene products and I am interested to hear what Australia's regulatory agency thinks of it.

Post time: 2013-2-25 10:39:51 |Show all posts

   I seldom participate in open forums and this response is sent to the participant that requested the publication of one of our "White Papers". This participant can if desired pass this along to the forum.

Dan,
     With great respect to you and your company, I am older, perhaps not wiser, but hold a large library of data.
Federal studies; Early 80's studies: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and EPA.
Combined studies:The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) filed several challenge petitions around Aug 1997  concerning HAP's delisting of Ethylene glycol ethers (EGME and EGEE and their acetates). The United Autoworkers International Union and the Consumer Product Safety Commission nominated EGBE for testing in 1985. Thus CMA and The National Toxicology Program (NPT) began to compare data.
This is all very complicated but out of this and other research studies the exposure on EB was set from 5 - 50 ppm or ACGIH TWA @ 20 ppm. see: Corley, R.A. Bormett (1994), /  Dodd, D.E., / Udden,  Mark M,  / Patton Cynthia S, .
Perhaps one of the best published overview on the subject was ARCO Chemical Company 1995 QP 180 1295 with references from most major chemical manufacturers and government and government sponsored laboratory studies.  Also ARCO Chemical Company QP 181 1295 Comparative Aquatic Toxicity of Propylene Glycol Ethers and ARCO Chemical Company QP 182 1295 Comparative Biodegradation of Propylene Glycol Ethers.  

This is an interesting back and forth and I hope more industry professionals chime in.

Post time: 2013-2-25 09:10:23 |Show all posts
Bob Danielson has outdone himself with this paper.  While generally correct, it does make several questionable, if not slightly amusing assertions.  The first sentence "In the past twenty-five years the chemical structure of the glycol ether solvents have undergone a marked chemical change." is obviously not what he meant, the structure of these glycol ethers remains unchanged.  I think he meant that glycol ethers with new structures were introduced into the market.  
Linking EE and EM with EB based on their common source is an attempt at guilt by association.  EB is dramatically safer to handle than EE or EM and as I pointed out earlier it was EE solvent that was the focus of health investigations into ethylene glycol ethers and EE has largely been replaced in industry with safer alternatives.   Many industrial processes required the use of boiling glycol ethers and this environment would be a hazardous one to work in regardless of the glycol ether used, though EE or EM would be the worst choices by far.  It is important to note that while the general range of propylene based glycol ethers are 'safer' than ethylene based glycol ethers, it does not mean they are totally 'safe' to use, depending on your definition of the word safe.
Without identifying the mysterious government laboratories credited with requiring this change (I do not think this happened, if it did it was after the fact rather than the driving force), this paper ignores the contributions of Dow and ARCO who developed these propylene based glycols. glycol ethers, and ether acetates. When ARCO started promoting these solvents to me in the late 1980's, there was no mention of any government involvement, ARCO was out to make money and marketed these solvents aggressively against ethylene based products based on health benefits (to compensate for the higher costs). We introduced a variety of products based on PM, DPM and PnB around 1990, but there was little, if any interest in them and no one thought it was a good idea to pay more for products that did not work any better than the ones they were replacing. I am currently using several of these solvents in fountain solutions and alcohol replacements, but they are not likely to eliminate the use of EB in every application.
The primary danger from glycol ethers in general is inhalation and when used at low concentrations (like in fountain solution) and refrigerated (like fountain solution) there is little likelihood that any glycol ether will be inhaled.  I have yet to see a fountain solution label that does not suggest the use of gloves when handling the concentrate and while  I have never taken this precaution myself I encourage those concerned about exposure to do so.  i do try to avoid the use of glycol ethers entirely when formulating for spray dampening presses which fill the air with a fine mist of fountain solution that is difficult to avoid breathing.  
These comments are not meant as a knock against Amerikal or Mr. Danielson; advertising copy usually employs a little license and I think that Amerikal does a better job than most companies to promote a 'sustainable' pressroom.

Post time: 2013-2-25 07:19:16 |Show all posts

Dan  the following white paper was sent to me.  I asked for permission to post  and it was granted.
In the past twenty-five years the chemical structure of the glycol ether solvents have undergone a marked chemical change.  Previously glycol ethers were mainly derived from the ethers formed by the chemical reaction of ethylene oxide (a two carbon molecule) with various alcohols.  This reaction gave rise to various products such as Dowanol EM (methyl Cellosolve, Dowanol EE (Ethyl Cellosolve) and Dowanol EB (Butyl Cellosolve).
These chemicals had one thing in common.  All were based on the mono-ether with ethylene glycol (ethylene oxide reacted with water) this class of solvents found wide use in paints, varnishes, fountain solutions, etc.  They were manufactured in large volumes by the major chemical companies.
About thirty-five years ago Government laboratories, which study the health effects of industrial chemicals found this type of glycol ether produced toxic effects when metabolized by the human body.  The cause of the problem turned out to be based on the fact that these glycol ethers were formed by the two carbon ethylene oxide molecule.  This two carbon building block is what caused these glycol ethers to break down into toxins in the body.
When this became known, a concerted effort was launched to reduce the usage of two carbon glycol ethers.  This affects fountain solutions because Dowanol EB (butyl Cellosolve) is widely used.
To overcome the toxic drawback of the two carbon based glycol ethers and still retain the fine properties of this type of chemical solvent, the large chemical companies developed a new series of glycol ethers.  These new glycol ethers are now based on a three carbon oxide (propylene oxide) as the building block to make this series of glycol ethers.  The use of the same alcohols yield products that perform just like the previous two carbon glycol ethers.
The difference between the new glycol ethers is they are based on a three carbon building block as the base.  This gets around the two carbon toxic effect when metabolized by the human body since the three carbon structure metabolizes by a different pathway.
The three carbon glycol ethers have generally the same physical properties, i.e. they are still good oxygenated solvents, they tend to have lower vapor pressures and higher boiling points.  You will see these glycol ethers under names as Dowanol PM and DPM.  The use threshold of these glycol ethers, due to the reduced toxic metabolic effects, are generally higher.  However one must remember that all organic solvents, if handled indiscriminately can be a safety hazard.
The same would apply on polyglycol derivatives.  The two carbon based glycols (ethylene glycol) and polyglycols (diethylene glycol, etc.) are more toxic if ingested than similar compounds based on three carbon building blocks (propylene glycol).
Since these propylene glycols have very low vapor pressures (very high boiling points) they do not generally contribute to health problems or environmental pollution.
This is a White Paper from Amerikal Products Corporation’s continued series “YOU NEED TO KNOW”, reproduction without the consent of Amerikal Products Corporation is prohibited.

Post time: 2013-2-25 05:39:49 |Show all posts
Interesting question, although the definition of 'solventability' needs to be established.  
It is common in the US for sheetfed alcohol substitutes to contain 50 to 100 percent EB or some other similar solvent (EB, EP, DPM, DB, PnB are all used by one vendor or another) while web formulas to produce similar work (high end catalogs, magazines etc) at much higher speeds usually contain less than 7% of these solvents.  This is for presses with continuous dampening, brush and spray dampening formulations for high speed web often contain no solvent whatsoever in order to be VOC free.  
The reasons sheetfed formulations require high solvent levels are complicated and few people in the fountain solution business would agree about the reasons for this. There are many low solvent products on the market for sheetfed printing but their success is limited, and may be determined by the equipment they are run on.

Post time: 2013-2-25 04:34:11 |Show all posts

  Dan
   Is there any relationship between solubility and solventability?   With EB being 100% soluble  would that make better it a better solvent?
   This is very intriguing.

Post time: 2013-2-25 02:48:16 |Show all posts
Well, the surface tension of a a solvent is only relevant to fountain solution if it is measured at the concentration the solvent would represent in the mixed solution as used on press.  Just because the surface tension of 2 tert butoxy ethanol is a little lower than EB neat does not mean it will still be so when diluted in water (and mingled with a variety of other ingredients).  
The solubility is critical in the sense that often a solvent like EB is used as a co-solvent (to improve the solubility of other materials that are less water soluble) where a less soluble solvent would be ineffective.  EB is 1000/1000 soluble in water so there is a big difference there.  Fountain solution ingredients all have to be dissolved in the available water in the product and the less soluble an individual ingredient is, the more complicated this becomes.  A considerable portion of the cost of a product might be invested in ingredients serving no other purpose than holding the formula together.

Post time: 2013-2-25 00:59:08 |Show all posts

Interesting Dan.
With such a low solubility in water what negative effects do you think could arise?
Looking at the following links the dyne level of 2 tert butoxyethanol is lower then 2 butoxyethanol but its very marginal and would it even make a difference?
ChemSpider | 2-tert-Butoxyethanol | C6H14O2
2 tert butoxy ethanol Surface Tension:
27.9549999237061 dyne/cm
ChemSpider | 2-butoxyethanol | C6H14O2
2 butoxyethanol Surface Tension:
29.8579998016357 dyne/cm

Post time: 2013-2-24 23:12:16 |Show all posts
My bad, I was distracted yesterday and my attention to detail lapsed somewhat.  My comment remains unchanged though, 7580-85-0 2-tert-Butoxyethanol having only 195.6/1000 solubility in water is not likely to attract much attention from fountain solution formulators.

Post time: 2013-2-24 21:14:19 |Show all posts
Dan thanks for the reply,
Are we talking about the same chemical?
2 tert butoxyethanol Cas 7580-85-0 is the one I'm comparing to 2 butoxyethanol
The health link you gave was for
1-TERT-BUTOXY-2-PROPANOL Cas 57018-52-7 vs 2 butoxyethanol

Post time: 2013-2-24 20:00:27 |Show all posts
I would suggest reading
Environmental Health Perspectives: Meeting Report: Summary of IARC Monographs on Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol, and 1-tert-Butoxy-2-Propanol
I am not familiar with 7580-85-0 2-tert-Butoxyethanol as a fountain solution ingredient and see no justification for considering it 'safer' than 111-76-2 2-Butoxyethanol (or Butyl Cellosolve, EB, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, to name a few synonyms), but maybe I am missing something.  
EB is popular for several reasons, it is relatively inexpensive (compared to other glycol ethers), manufactured widely and in huge quantities, and is stocked just about anywhere in the world, so it is a convenient ingredient to use.  Many common and well known kitchen, bathroom cleaners and glass cleaners have traditionally contained lots of EB.
It was EE solvent (ethylene glycol monoethyl ether that gave glycol ethers a bad name but I have not seen this used in fountain solution or any other pressroom chemical, for that matter.

Post time: 2013-2-24 18:43:03 |Show all posts
Could any of the fountain solution manufacturers help with this?  Their years of observation and in the field experience would be welcomed.
You have to log in before you can reply Login | register

Advertise on OASQ.COM| Contact us| Archive| OASQ

2021-11-29 06:50 GMT-8

Powered by Discuz! 7.2

Release 20121101, © 2001-2021 OASQ.

To Top