In an article produced by the Verdigris Project, an industry initiative intended to raise awareness of print’s positive environmental impact, founder Laurel Brunner says it’s been a long time coming but the end of mercury arc lamps is definitely in sight.
Mercury is a seriously nasty neurotoxin that is steadily being regulated out of products, including in the fluorescent lamps used in the printing industry for ink curing. Bodies from the US Environmental Protection Agency to the United Nations and the European Union are all banning the use of mercury in products mostly by the end of 2025.
UV-curable ink chemistries have been optimised for curing using mercury arc lamps for decades, so the mercury arc lamp habit is well-entrenched in the printing business. The lamps have been the workhorses of curing applications and used in a wide range of applications for many years.
But times and technologies change. The good news is that we have a solid market for LED curing lamps and inks. Printers still using technologies that contain mercury should be thinking about making the leap into LED. Fluorescent lamps will be around for the next couple of years, but the printing industry needs to accelerate its adoption of LED-based alternatives for ink curing. The end of 2025 marks the end of exemptions for the use of mercury in products such as fluorescent lamps.
Printers have a few options, such as stockpiling replacement lamps which quite a few companies are doing. But this ties up capital, distorts the market and only defers the inevitable. Far more sensible is to make the transition now and to get used to the new reality.
Fortunately, LED lamps have several compelling attractions, in that they require barely any time to warm up and last far longer than fluorescent lamps. They can deliver an extremely smooth spectral curve that can be read without needing a high-resolution measurement device. They also generate much less heat, so the range of substrates that can be printed is greater. And with LED lamps, there is no risk of UV radiation, which isn’t good for your health.
New investment carries its own risk, but when it comes to inks and curing, staying within the rules has to be a good idea. The matter of mercury arc versus LED can get complicated, so it’s also good that regulations have simplified the argument. Banning the use of mercury is in the interests of us all, so we should welcome both the rules and the development of LED based alternatives. We should probably not dwell on the fact that there is probably more mercury in your mouth (800mg per dental filling) than in the average curing lamp (10-100mg). But that’s an altogether different concern.
Caption:
Laurel Brunner, founder of the Verdigris Project
This article is part of the Verdigris series of stories about understanding the environmental impact of print. The Verdigris Project is supported by Agfa Graphics (www.agfa.com), Digital Dots (http://digitaldots.org), drupa (www.drupa.com), EFI (www.efi.com), Fespa (www.fespa.com), Kodak (www.kodak.com/go/sustainability), Mondi (www.mondigroup.com/products), Pragati Offset (www.pragati.com), Ricoh (www.ricoh.com), Shimizu Printing (www.shzpp.co.jp), Splash PR (www.splashpr.co.uk), Unity Publishing (http://unity-publishing.co.uk) and Xeikon (www.xeikon.com).
