Bulletin 2 - Traditional Screen Reclamation System vs Alternative System Epsilon

Chemical Composition
Ink Remover	100% Lacquer thinner, consisting of: 30% Methyl ethyl ketone 20% Naphtha light aliphatic 20% Toluene 15% n-butyl acetate 10% Isobutyl isobutyrate 5% Methanol	Cyclohexanone Methoxypropanol acetate Diethylene glycol Benzyl alcohol Diacetone alcohol Aromatic solvent naphtha Derivatized plant oil
Emulsion Remover	1% Sodium periodate 99% Water	Sodium periodate Sulfate salt Water
Haze Remover	10% Xylene 30% Acetone 30% Mineral spirits 30% Cyclohexanone	Alkyl benzene sulfonates Ethoxylated nonylphenol Phosphate salt Sodium hydroxide Derivatized plant oil Water Ink Remover

[ Back to Bulletin 2 ] [ Back to Top ] [ Chemical Composition ] [ Health Risks ] [ Performance ] [ Cost ]

Health Risks¹

If you use the ink or haze remover on a regular basis, there is a clear concern for harmful health effects from inhaling the chemicals (specifically toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and acetone).

There is also a clear concern for adverse health effects if your skin contacts the ink or haze remover on a daily basis (also from toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and acetone). The concern is marginal for contact with cyclohexanone in the haze remover. If gloves and safety goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.

There is a clear concern that regular, unprotected contact with the emulsion remover will cause skin and eye irritation and tissue damage. If gloves and safety goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.

There are no clear concerns associated with any part of the Epsilon system. There is a marginal concern for developmental toxicity risk from inhalation exposures to cyclohexanone in the ink remover.

If you use the ink or haze remover on a daily basis without wearing gloves, there is a marginal concern for harmful effects from the chemicals (specifically cyclohexanone, benzyl alcohol, and methoxypropanol acetate) being absorbed through your skin. If gloves and safety goggles are worn, the risk is negligible.

¹Clear concerns > Marginal concerns > Negligible concerns. Concerns were identified because exact risks were not calculated. The information in this table is based on the September 1994 draft Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Screen Printing Technical Report.

[ Back to Bulletin 2 ] [ Back to Top ] [ Chemical Composition ] [ Health Risks ] [ Performance ] [ Cost ]

Performance
Ink Remover	With solvent and UV inks, it removed the ink with moderate scrubbing effort. A gray haze remained on the entire screen. With water-based ink, the ink solidified.	In on-site demonstrations, removed ink well. Worked well in lab testing.
Emulsion Remover	Not demonstrated²	Quickly and easily removed the stencil during facility demos and lab tests.
Haze Remover	Not demonstrated²	Lightened the ink stain and usually removed the haze during both lab testing and facility demonstrations.
²The ink remover was demonstrated during laboratory tests as a component of a different reclamation system.

[ Back to Bulletin 2 ] [ Back to Top ] [ Chemical Composition ] [ Health Risks ] [ Performance ] [ Cost ]

Cost
Cost	$6.27/screen or $9,399/year	Facility A: $3.08/screen or $4,624/year Facility B: $5.29/screen or $7,930/year

[ Back to Bulletin 2 ] [ Back to Top ] [ Chemical Composition ] [ Health Risks ] [ Performance ] [ Cost ]

Bulletin 2 - Traditional Screen Reclamation System vs Alternative System Epsilon

Local Navigation