Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.  (Read 11075 times)

mikev1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« on: February 21, 2011, 11:42:04 pm »

I was rolling a canvas print with Eco Print Shield and a fair sized bug landed on the print when I wasn't watching after the first pass.  I noticed it when I went to put the second coat on.  Seeing it was a panorama for personal use I figured I'd just continue coating and maybe cut it down as the bug was near the edge of the print.

About an hour after the third coat the bug had totally been disolved away by the coating.  There is a small clear lump where the bug was.  You'd only notice the lump if you were really up close to the print.


It sure convinced me to always wear gloves when using this stuff.  Not that I'm afraid of my fingers disappearing  :D but probably not best to come in contact with this stuff.

The good news was the print was usable after all!
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1502
    • Celebrating Rural America, the Balkans and beyond
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2011, 01:00:45 am »

I used a case of the spray-on Print Shield a couple of years ago and did it with a respirator outside. Best bet is to get the MSDS to find out any hazards and precautions you need to be ware of.
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, ACT, & many more! @sacred_icons
https://angier-fox.photoshelter.com

RFPhotography

  • Guest
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2011, 08:18:32 am »

I thought the whole point of the Eco was that it was supposed to be non-toxic.  In fact, it says right on the Premier website "non-toxic/non-hazardous". 
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2011, 08:20:44 am »

MSDS is here:  http://ebookbrowse.com/eco-print-shield-bulk-msds-pdf-d42030379  Primary ingredient is listed as a skin irritant and nothing more.  That being said, I would certainly wear protective eye gear and only use this in an area that has good ventilation.

As I was composing this I see a reply about toxicity.  Lack of primary toxicity does NOT mean that something is not hazardous; far from it.  You can have skin, eye, and respiratory sensitivities which can cause other problems.
Logged

milt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Striking & Distinctive Custom Photographic Prints
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2011, 10:27:19 am »

Any chance the bug just crawled off the edge?   ;D

--Milt--
Logged
Los Gatos, California | http://miltonbarber.com

mikev1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2011, 12:38:36 pm »

No way it walked off.  I put two more coats over it.  If it walked away it rose from the dead.  I should point out the bug was long and not thick.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2011, 01:58:20 pm »

Be sure to count your fingers every morning before breakfast.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2011, 08:34:51 pm »

I'm wondering whether any of this gunk eventually eats through the prints.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Brian Gilkes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 443
    • http://www.briangilkes.com.au
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2011, 09:13:12 pm »

Apparently not.
Apart from reassurances from Wilhelm, manufacturer and Hahnemuhle I can say I've used  the stuff for over 6 years with no complaints and sprayed prints here still look good.  From a chemical point of view dissolution of an exoskeleton with a water based product is unlikely. The solvent based versions  (that require respirators) can trap insects but, as far as I can tell, not dissolve them.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2011, 09:28:08 pm »

Good to know Brian, thanks.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2011, 08:08:12 am »

Did a little more sleuthing (primarily because I'm a chemist) and the product in question was originally developed by Eastman Kodak and trademarked as Texanol.  It has wide use in the paint industry as a component of latex paints (also is used in nail polish).  It has non-yellowing properties which may be why it was selected for coating inkjet prints.  It is also classified by some as a "green" chemical (environmentally friendly).  See the Eastman brochure for more information.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2011, 08:33:24 am »

Thanks Alan.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2011, 09:24:56 am »

Alan, further on this, do you know off-hand what current products on the market for protecting prints are the same as this Kodak product?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2011, 11:29:37 am »

I'm wondering whether any of this gunk eventually eats through the prints.

While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest these aqueous-based coatings will eat through the print, I have seen notable field failures of coated canvas (sent to me by AaI&A members) that can't be explained merely by intense light fading issues. Also, in one paired comparison test (coated versus uncoated canvas print samples with K3 Ultrachrome inks) currently undergoing lightfastness testing at AaI&A the uncoated print sample is faring better in test than the coated sample. That said, the solvent based coatings like Premier Print Shield seem to consistently improve print durability (lightfastness, gas fastness) but they are mainly used with matte papers and glossy photo type papers (they basically are too brittle a coating to remain crack free with canvas stretching).

My overall sense is that there are potential compatibility issues that need further research. Some canvas/coating combinations will no doubt be excellent while others will lead to additional print permanence problems down the road. The chemistry of the ink receptor layer of the canvas product is likely to be a major variable.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2011, 11:35:27 am »

While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest these aqueous-based coatings will eat through the print, I have seen notable field failures of coated canvas (sent to me by AaI&A members) that can't be explained merely by intense light fading issues. Also, in one paired comparison test (coated versus uncoated canvas print samples with K3 Ultrachrome inks) currently undergoing lightfastness testing at AaI&A the uncoated print sample is faring better in test than the coated sample. That said, the solvent based coatings like Premier Print Shield seem to consistently improve print durability (lightfastness, gas fastness) but they are mainly used with matte papers and glossy photo type papers (they basically are too brittle a coating to remain crack free with canvas stretching).

My overall sense is that there are potential compatibility issues that need further research. Some canvas/coating combinations will no doubt be excellent while others will lead to additional print permanence problems down the road. The chemistry of the ink receptor layer of the canvas product is likely to be a major variable.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
 

Mark, this is getting interesting. Any idea how these coatings fare on papers such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta Photographique?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2011, 02:29:01 pm »

Alan, further on this, do you know off-hand what current products on the market for protecting prints are the same as this Kodak product?
Mark, I would look for products with the listing of the following active ingredient:  2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate.  Texanol is the Eastman Chemical trademark for this.  Of course we also do not know what other compounds are in the Premier Eco Printshield that may be the active ingredient.  The above compound is the only one listed with an MSDS (material safety data sheet).  According to the website, the Printshield contains a variety of acrylic resins with a new cross linking technology.  I rather suspect that this is the true coating material and the Texanol is added as a coalescing agent (e.g., it helps promote even film formation on the surface).  This and other such agents are widely used in the paint and coatings industry to assure a uniform coating that is free from cracking.  Most polymers are chemically non-toxic and do not require a MSDS which is why we only know about the one agent in the Premier product. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2011, 02:32:01 pm »

This all looks to me like a field ripe for some concentrated longevity analysis, if it has not already been conducted somewhere.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2011, 05:05:04 pm »

Mark, this is getting interesting. Any idea how these coatings fare on papers such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta Photographique?

I don't think the aqueous-coatings are all that great for photo type inkjet media. The low-viscosity solvent sprays like Print Shield are most appropriate for the photo type surfaces because they create a thin conformal coating, thus leaving the initial media surface texture more intact. The aqueous-based coatings like Eco Print Shield are more appropriate for canvas because traditional decorative finishes used on canvas are generally brushed on and create a fairly thick final coat. The traditional aesthetic of a fully varnished canvas painting is more of the the look artists are going for with these types of overcoats.

Most of my own personal printing is on the papers like Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Hn Photo Rag Baryta, etc. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that sealing the microporous ink receptor layer with a thin conformal acrylic coating like Print Shield is really important. Yup, its a PITA and by the time one gets finished spraying a large print you will have more money in that final coating than you do in the ink used to make the image. Ouch! Nevertheless, I think microporous inkjet prints really benefit from sealing those pores with a top coating.

Premier implies the protective benefit is largely due to UV blockers in the spray, but I really doubt that. Even with three or four coats applied, the final coating is too thin to filter out much UVA radiation. Normal glazing like ordinary picture frame glass filters out the UVB/UVC rays, so evaluating UVA radiation attenuation is the key this product claim. Try an experiment with Print Shield on an an OBA-rich paper like Epson Exhibition Fiber. Cover half the paper and spray. Then look at the paper under blacklight. If the coating was a  highly effective UV blocker, the coated side wouldn't glow under blacklight. But it does...almost as much as the non sprayed side. So, what's going on here? By sealing the pores, the light-induced and ozone-induced oxidation rate of the colorants is being significantly reduced because the surface area-to-volume ratio of the microporous ink receptor coating is being radically altered.  In AaI&A tests and those done by WIR, fade resistance can nearly double when Print Shield (also, re-badged as HN Protective Spray, etc) is used. And equally important, the image layer now has much better scratch and abrasion resistance, so it's a win-win for durability despite being a total PITA to use and expensive as well.

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2011, 05:27:24 pm »

Thanks Mark, this is valuable information.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Light Seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
Re: I wonder just how toxic Eco Print Shield and the like are.
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2011, 05:52:52 pm »

I don't think the aqueous-coatings are all that great for photo type inkjet media. The low-viscosity solvent sprays like Print Shield are most appropriate for the photo type surfaces because they create a thin conformal coating, thus leaving the initial media surface texture more intact.

Mark, I have been experimenting with coating cotton rag papers (e.g. Canson Rag Photographique) with Breathing Color Timeless for display in a frame without glass. If I understand your comments correctly, your concern is with the impact Timeless (or a similar product) has on the aesthetic of the paper, rather than a concern about an impact on the stability of the paper itself. Am I correct?

Most of my own personal printing is on the papers like Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Hn Photo Rag Baryta, etc. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that sealing the microporous ink receptor layer with a thin conformal acrylic coating like Print Shield is really important.

What are your thoughts on using Renaissance Wax to achieve the same result?

Terry.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up