in

Against the grain

Ink off paper

Every Monday morning, I leave my weekly stockpile of used jars or empty bottles in the council-supplied green plastic tub outside for collection. And every Monday evening, I come home to find it half full of those same jars and bottles.

So every Tuesday, I double-check whether I’ve got the collection day wrong, again.

Nope. Monday it is.

So I then do what any other reasonable person would do – rehearse a long and morally superior phone call to my council to ask, pompously, how they expect Londoners to recycle more when they won’t even pick up my collection.

On one occasion, I actually made the call. And I quickly tumbled down the moral high ground when it turned out that they jars and bottles just weren’t clean enough to enter the waste stream.

Whoops.

Which brings me, circuitously, to paper recycling. If printing is basically about putting ink on paper, then paper recycling is all about cleaning it up and getting ink off paper. 'De-inking' is a tried and tested craft, relying on processes refined over decades. And it was flung firmly into the spotlight at Drupa.

At the show, I met up with Axel Fischer, public relations officer for INGEDE, the International Association of the Deinking Industry. He came armed with a stack of information, test results and not an insignificant amount of passion about the dangers inkjet poses to the de-inking process.

The story goes that paper recycling plants are geared toward conventional offset and gravure inks. Dry toner fits happily into the same system (in fact, some leading toner manufacturers’ print is said to have the best performance). But inkjet - that young upstart of a technology that so impressed pundits with a host of new applications and breakthroughs that the fair was widely crowned the ‘Inkjet Drupa’ – seems rebellious by its very nature.

According to Fischer, inkjet inks are too hydrophilic (‘water-loving’, if you will) and can’t be properly removed during recycling, thus muddying the paper. He was even more unforgiving about UV-cured inks and, in particular, HP’s Electro Ink, which, he claimed, break into big particles that end up peppering the final substrate with ‘dirt specks’.

Perhaps this wasn’t such an issue in inkjet’s infancy, when the quantities were low. But with Drupa exhibitors flying the flag for high-volume inkjetted newspapers and direct mail, the debate is only going to grow.

The line in the sand (or perhaps dry toner powder) has been drawn. Vendors and digital soothsayers are proselytising the dizzying possibilities offered by the technology. On the other side, recycled paper apostles are printing ‘The End is Nigh’ on their sandwich boards (with offset inks, I imagine) in preparation for the de-inking apocalypse.

But redemption is at hand. Or at least, it could be in the future. Solutions theorised range from the scientific, such as using biological enzymes and micro-organisms to dislodge those pesky particles, to the deterrent, such as branding inkjet printed products with a “Cannot be recycled” warning akin to cigarette packaging. The former would require significant restructuring to paper’s waste stream, while the second would surely sound a sustainability death-knell for inkjet, but they both show that answers are being sought. Print, long lambasted as a ‘dirty industry’, has again and again proved itself capable of evolving to meet environmental imperatives and market demands.

Going back to household recycling, come next Monday evening, my best-case scenario would be an emptied green tub sans jars or bottles (regardless of how well I scrubbed out that empty half pint of semi-skimmed). But it’s doubtful my local reprocessing plant is going to re-tool its cleaning department any time soon, thus throwing the onus back on me.

For inkjet recycling, the ideal outcome is undoubtedly different for the various stakeholders. Deciding whose solutionis best  requires discussion and debate, and, thankfully, the inkjet de-inking issue is now firmly on the agenda.

Comments

 

Richard Harris said:

A fascinating article and one that points up a long held hobbyhorse of mine which is that 'recovery' does not necessarily equal 'recycling'.  Too often in the mind of the general public, 'recycing' just means putting material into the right box or bin - end of story.  In fact, it's just the start, and this collection or recovery process does not, in my view, end up being true recycling until the material is finally re-processed into an alternative, new product, be that paper, glass, road aggregate or whatever.  

When I look at the contents of the 'paper' recycling boxes of my neighbours, my heart goes out to to the waste re-processors.  At what cost, I wonder, does this 'recycled' material make it back into the secondary fibre stream for paper production - if in fact it ever does?  I also wonder what proportion actually gets back into landfill or other disposal systems.  For sure, a significant volume will find itself on a boat headed to Asia for manual sorting by cheap labour before it is re-used.  How eco-friendly and 'fairtrade' is that?  How far does our recovered material have to travel before it is recycled?

Maybe I'm being picky (!) but I can't helping feeling that until we address the real, underlying economics and technical limitations (such as you have clearly highlghted) of 'recycling' we will never get rid of the 'recovery' = 'recycling' anomaly.

June 27, 2008 10:49 AM
 

how to take ink off paper said:

Pingback from  how to take ink off paper

July 12, 2008 12:49 AM

About Steven Kiernan

Steven is Deputy Editor of Printing World and PrintBuyer.