Water Baed Inks Are NOT Eco Friendly, right?

[Fresh Baked Printing]

Am I missing something or are printers advertising "green eco" practices by using water based inks being dishonest? I see it all the time and it drives me crazy. Yes, there are now Phthalate free inks. Maybe I'm misinformed about water based inks?

[tonypep]

Without having access to exact pigment information its hard to say. Most water "bases" are somewhere around 80% water and are latex based. So waterbase ink for light fabrics is rather "Green"(I am learning to dislike that term). It's important to mention that both ZF and NF discharge and hybrid inks are generally not considered Eco Friendly.
tp

[yorkie]

Water based inks got their "eco friendly" reputation in the paper printing world, where prior to shift to water based inks were using solvent based inks. One facility i worked was the largest polluter in the county, because of the 1/2 million pounds of solvents released into the air. In this context, 1/2 million pounds of water pollutes less that 1/2 million pounds of solvents (mostly 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE plus a couple thousand pounds of toluene).

IMHO, plastisol is much better for the environment than water based inks. To start with, it takes more energy to dry and cure a water based shirt than cure a plastisol print. A well printed plastisol shirt has a much longer wear life than water based shirts. Water based inks tend to have a problem that in the first 10 washes, it has faded dramatically and not in a "good way". Screen printing ages gracefully. Even cracking is often desired to show aging.

The only environmental concern is the phthalate additives to plastisol. The industry and government has seemed to worked this issue out. Water based inks use some additives which also give off emissions, such as antifreeze.

I think that 99.44% of "green printers" are only after the green of money.

[ebscreen]

Green washing BS aside, I'd rather be covered in WB inks over Plastisol any day.

And I'd disagree with the aging thing. I think waterbased prints hold up much better
than plastisol. You're coloring fibers, not encapsulating them. Done correctly, no fibrillation,
no cracking.

[squeegee]

My experience with WB is that as well, fibrillation is almost non-exsistent and the color when done properly is outstanding.  I really like WB, I take every opportunity I can to use it.  I think shirts, especially light colors printed with transparent WB ink look much better over time and multiple washings than plastisol.

No chemicals for clean up is a plus as well.

As far as selling as a "green" product, well it is water based and not plastic, so there is a certain truth to it being more eco-friendly, IMHO.

[Evo]

Most anything you use to print can be hazardous, it mostly depends on the cleanup, not the use of the ink on press. All inks and chemicals must be handled and disposed of correctly.


I have a shirt on right now that I printed with Matsui HO ink over 2 years ago. I wear it all the time, it's been washed dozens of times and it still looks pretty good. Minimal cracking and there is still some stretch to it.

In fact the shirt is falling apart but the print still looks ok.


I have a shirt similar in age that is printed w/ white plastisol and it looks like ass. Stiff, cracking, etc.


It's all in how it's used.

[Prōdigium]

Am I missing something or are printers advertising "green eco" practices by using water based inks being dishonest? I see it all the time and it drives me crazy. Yes, there are now Phthalate free inks. Maybe I'm misinformed about water based inks?

Do not confuse the issue..."Phthalates" have NOTHING to do with the environment and being a "green" product. Phthalate Free Screen Printing Inks are to conform to health and safety of people, not trees and water.

As for Water Based Inks Inks being "safer, you are correct that for the most part, this is utter nonsense and even most ink companies will admit that the hazardous ingredients are the pigments and modifiers. These are often the same for both plastisol and water-based inks. Also you must use similar chemicals to reclaim the screens....so really, its a bit dishonest to say a "water" based ink is green...especially when you consider how much MORE heat is required to cure them by comparison to plastisol inks...Energy is a resource and part of the process, so why would it be greener to use double the heat to "dry" a water based ink , vs "curing" a plastisol ??

All to often I see that people only look at PART of the process to make it appear as though they are green. Much like the stupid E-80 Ethanol fuel. The TRUTH is that not only is the fuel mostly made from FOOD, which is exceptionally stupid...but the cars on the market actually get 20%-30% LESS gas mileage per gallon because the motor is not properly engineered to burn ethanol....so you pay more, get less and actually do MORE damage to the environment !!

It drives me nuts and like the ECO green products , it only matters in the BIG PICTURE of your shops production. The reality is that many industries are paying more for these "false labels" and hence , the end user (customers) pay more to do little if anything that actually could be considered GREEN.

[Fresh Baked Printing]

Being a "Green" shop means more than using wb inks (wb aint' green anyway). It's more how you run your shop on the whole.
Also, isn't the whole "Phthalates" thing based on so many parts per million that a child would need to consume barrels of it to see any effect at all?
Wasn't the whole Phthalates regulation a feel good vote for congress?

[squeezee]

Phthalates are nasty and their are easy (but more expensive) alternatives.
I agree that being green is more than changing your ink.
Being green also makes good business sense, recycle packaging, don't waste energy, don't run horrible chemicals down the drain, cut down on transport (I ship locally by bike), turn the heating/aircon down, don't leave computers running.
It's not rocket science.