Comments

MPM wrote on 1/16/2008, 7:35 AM
Doing a quick google it appears similar to this:
http://www.dickblick.com/itemgroups-p/paper-conservation/

I've picked up the Krylon spray locally at places like Kmart -- it's really readily available in the US. Nasty fumes, but I'd imagine that's true of most any spray paint type stuff. It is a type of acrylic that dries almost instantly -- you don't want to wet the surface because no telling how the ink or whatever would react with the solvents -- so you spray several light coats that sit on top of your your print or whatever.

I've used it for years on all sorts of projects and it's always done very well & usually improves the appearance of ink jet printing. OTOH it's only a very thin layer of surface protection, and won't do much to prevent damage from rough handling. My *guess* is that any type of sealant *might* make any damage from rough handling worse: it bonds to the very top surface layer, and if whatever's beneath it is softer (like the printable coating on a DVD?), I'd imagine a hard scratch could be like chipping away paint.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 1/16/2008, 10:31 AM
i'd recommend letting the disks dry for ~24 hours. Disc's I've sprayed right after printing (within an hour) yellow. Ones that I waits 1 day+, haven't.
musicvid10 wrote on 1/18/2008, 6:50 AM
**Disc's I've sprayed right after printing (within an hour) yellow. **

That's correct, because inkjet inks are made with conventional dyes containing phenyl amines. They can take up to 24 hours to oxidize, thus the results you experience. Also, the UV protection afforded by these sprays won't prevent the paper underneath from eventually yellowing due to acid content, although it may slow it down by providing a moisture barrier.

A HUGE CAUTION: Those matte or protective sprays contain polymers which will cause permanent lung damage if inhaled. In a few sprays the propellants are dangerous too. The home user should always and only spray outdoors, wear goggles and gloves, and stand upwind of their work. They should also quit immediately at the slightest odor or irritation and get to an emergency room immediately if there is any dizziness or wheezing. Commercial users must always use OSHA approved hooded spray booths and wear recommended protective clothing, goggles, and respirators. This is not stuff to play with, even if the warnings on the cans don't "look" that bad.
Too bad some of us had to learn the hard way, through experience.
johnmeyer wrote on 1/18/2008, 9:52 AM
Normally I scoff when someone tells me how hazardous things are (I used to run through the DDT sprayers back in the 1950s ...). However, in this case, I very much agree. I have even been affected by "Dust-Off" where I was cleaning hundreds of negatives prior to scanning. I should have just invested in a big nitrogen tank, but Costco had great sales on Dust-Off and I just kept buying more. Then I started to get tightness in my chest, and lots of other symptoms. Took awhile for the light bulb to go off. Opened a windows, and my problems went away.
MPM wrote on 1/18/2008, 10:33 AM
FWIW RE: Toxic fumes:
Ventilation of any sort isn't really a cure, unless you're talking about a totally sealed container like you see in the movies where they're working with some deadly antigen. The correct way to do it is to use a respirator, making sure that it has a good fit. That's the only way to insure your lungs aren't taking in any particles or vapors. You can get a cheap one at Harbor Freight, or check out the tools section at Sears.

Decades ago AFAIK the worse chemical for killing off brain cells was the carb cleaners, followed by the various additives for spraying automotive lacquer I think... Then along came the urethane paints, & it was a whole new, deadlier ballgame, when respirators went from optional to mandatory.

For whatever reason folks tend to disregard hazards, & then one day it dawns on someone that something's dangerous... Chemists were using benzine for decades, mechanics were inhaling asbestos brake dust, formaldehyde's still a big problem.

RE: Inks...
There's a lot of pigment-based inks out now, as well as specialty inks with different formulations, some designed for archival. The printing surface itself varies. Ink Jet photo paper for example tends to have a sort of hairy texture. I'd imagine the brand & model of printable disc, printer, inks, and spray would all have a big effect on performance & longevity. In some cases the environment plays a big role too, & is one thing in favor of spray coatings -- was it Epson that had their inks turn orange when there was a high concentration of ozone?
TheHappyFriar wrote on 1/18/2008, 2:21 PM
i second spraying outside. If it's winter, open a door/window & spray in the area of those, aiming out the door/window. turn off all fans. That will negate the purpose of the open window/door (and could smear the spray).
musicvid10 wrote on 1/18/2008, 4:15 PM
To MPM with respect:

**Ventilation of any sort isn't really a cure, **
Adequate ventilation always and unconditionally comes FIRST, and when used in combination with certified chemical-specific respirators provides the best available solution we have at this time, other than not using the chemicals altogether. A "respirator mentality" has killed thousands of workers in the plutonium, polyurethane, photochemical, and adhesives industries, and this is just a short list in the last sixty years. With your excellent knowledge of history, I wonder why you did not know this?

**You can get a cheap one at Harbor Freight, or check out the tools section at Sears.**
A cheap respirator is worse than no respirator, because a false sense of security can kill you. Get a good one with interchangeable cartridges that are OSHA approved for the EXACT chemical you will be working with, and NEVER expect a respirator to take the place of excellent ventilation practices. Expect to spend in the $100's for a commercial model with appropriate cartridges. A paint respirator such as those available from the retailers you mentioned will pass many other dangerous chemicals right into your lungs with potentially deadly results. See below.

**RE: Inks...**
I doubt you'll find many inkjet cartridges that don't contain paraphenylenediamine (PPD) or its close cousin metaphenylenediamine (MPD), which interestingly is also found in cigarettes. Do a Google if you really want to read some horror stories. I spent nearly two decades with industrial exposure to these beauties and matte / UV sprays including the ones mentioned above. Spray glues are even worse because irreversible brain damage can occur within minutes. I welcome and appreciate the comments of other posters, but unless you are actually experiencing their lifelong effects, you cannot begin to appreciate the seriousness of my message.
TOG62 wrote on 1/19/2008, 1:27 AM
As a H&S professional for many years I felt I should endorse what you say.

If you spray any such product indoors, even using the best personal protection, you are still contaminating your environment, family, pets & visitors. For home users the solution of spraying outside and upwind would provide the best and most practical form of protection - although not prefect. Even then, there is the question of environmental pollution. Not much per disc, but cumulative.

I have considered using these sprays but have concluded that the fairly small benefits do not outweigh the risks and cost. To put that in perspective I think many aspects of H&S these days are completely barmy and intrusive. In the UK many schools have banned activities like playing 'conkers' - crazy!!

Mike
MPM wrote on 1/19/2008, 2:25 PM
Totally FWIW, as I wasn't expecting any sort of controversial discussions... For background: enough college organic chem to satisfy eng, med, & pharm degree program requirements... Practical experience, formal training, & management in automotive, industrial maint. & equip., truck, & construction industries including hazardous materials & management... Personal interest due to MCS.

@musicvid:
"I welcome and appreciate the comments of other posters, but unless you are actually experiencing their lifelong effects, you cannot begin to appreciate the seriousness of my message."

Been there, done that, & am not about to be so tacky as to suggest some sort of "Who's is bigger" sort of discussion about who's been thru worse and suffered the most. Fact is we're living in a world full of toxic materials where exposure is certain even in some Alaskan town as in the series... And BTW, If you want to seriously explore this stuff, google isn't a great way to do it -- those most seriously ill cannot post, or put up a fancy web site. They're often not pretty and their stories make poor copy. Some of their stories are told by a few doctors and a lucky, relative few who've gone into remission, but when it gets to the point that the CDC won't even obey Congress and spend the money allocated for research, google isn't going to provide the yellow brick road to enlightenment.

If you feel inkjet printers produce an unacceptable risk, don't use them. Same with whatever else. If you want to engage in hyperbole or whatever, cool. However, when apparent falsehoods &/or illogical thinking are posted in disagreement, I feel the need to respond.

Ventilation is important to *REDUCE* the level of contaminants in any given area. HOWEVER, ventilation does not instantly remove those contaminants. For illustration watch a drop of food coloring in a bowl of clear water, & then gently stir. For practical illustration, on any highway -- in the open air with loads of ventilation -- smell diesel exhaust. One particularly clearcut example is Phoenix, AZ, where the haze of pollutants is extremely visible hanging over the city when viewed from a distance at higher elevation. Blowing stuff around, whether it's leaves or chemicals, DOES NOT eliminate them, or insure that the concentration you breath is less! It's necessary if you intend to ever take the mask off, and it helps to reduce concentrations, but how do you achieve the *adequate* ventilation on the product labels? If you spray outdoors, and you can still smell it, you've obviously not succeeded, not to mention lower concentrations and chemicals you can't smell.

If/when an individual doesn't come into contact with hazardous materials, those same hazardous materials cannot harm them. Makes perfect sense. The reverse is also just as true -- if they were harmed, they *must* have had exposure. What can't touch you, well, can't touch you. ;?P If hazardous materials get by a respirator, or through it's filters, or are inhaled without the respirator being worn, or otherwise enter the body by a different pathway than the lungs, you're exposed. If not, you're not. Ventilation might improve one's odds, but blowing air around is not 100% foolproof.

RE: respirators...
I can buy a pair of shoes, or better yet flip-flops, & I can pay over $100 or I can pay $2. There's an obvious difference with the $2 version, but, can't say that when the price approaches the $15 - $20 range. If ya want to spend over $100, more power to ya, but please realize that whatever you're getting for your money it's not necessarily practical function.

Now specifically respirators... "...Get a good one with interchangeable cartridges that are OSHA approved for the EXACT chemical you will be working with..." If a respirator meets those standards, whether I pay $20 or $30 or $50 or $500. it meets those standards, "doesn't it?" Because your hammer or screwdriver or respirator costs 100 times more than mine, does that mean my cheaper version doesn't do the job? Um, isn't that the reason for the standards, so you could make sure of the job getting done?

Now it is possible to spend a lot more for a respirator and get your money's worth, but we're talking about totally different classes of protection, far above and beyond someone using a spray can. IMHO it's a bit of overkill to don a full environmental suit with fresh O2 supply to use a spray can, but to each his/her own.

RE: "...those available from the retailers you mentioned will pass many other dangerous chemicals right into your lungs with potentially deadly results...."

Millions of pros use Harbor Freight & Sears Craftsman has been a prized name brand for tools since before many readers of this forum were born! I don't have the slightest idea what your definition of a commercial supplier or equipment is, but if it's anything like industrial, it's several grades below Carftsman tools for the pros -- industrial companies just don't want that sort of expense. If you want to buy a designer version of whatever again more power to you, but I assure you that millions of body shop techs & painters have relied on Sears products for decades. Regardless what some sales copy may say, why not ask a pro instead? Otherwise I humbly suggest you contact the powers that be and start blowing your whistle loudly so that the manufacturers stop listing these standards that they *allegedly* don't meet.

I'm not saying buy a paper dust mask and jump in a vat of pesticide... I'm saying that if you buy a respirator rated to filter out whatever you're spraying, it should filter that stuff out per the standards printed on the package. Is it possible you'll experience the Mattel syndrome, with products not up to spec? Sure. I don't know that the risk of that decreases with price paid though -- Mattel didn't make the cheapest toys either.

@TOG82

At some point some folks come to believe (I feel correctly) that practicality has its place in our world. If you're spraying a Krylon coating on your son's or daughter's prize artwork, then by all means spray outside (weather permitting), because the fumes and chemicals will hang around in your home. OTOH if you're doing something as a pro, you best be doing a pro level job if you want to keep on doing it, and unfortunately the uncontrolled environment outside your building may well make that impossible, if not impractical to say the least.

There's a reason many paint booths are forced by regs to have a somewhat sealed environment -- do you want to breath every bit of chemicals released by every person and company on the planet? In principle it's similar to flushing sewage directly into the local waterways -- check out the Detroit area if you want to see what the cumulative effect of that is. If you're a pro, you need to be doing that stuff indoors in a controlled environment. If you're a hobbyist, please remember that in places like Phoenix the terrible air pollution is in large part caused by individuals; don't be selfish and at the least please consider setting up a spray booth or hood with some sort of filtering or other means of collection.

Deciding not to use environmentally questionable products is a great way to demonstrate individual responsibility. Sometimes though that's not possible, or we feel the personal price too high -- that's when personal responsibility becomes so important... Regs *always* have the negative effect of reducing or even removing that sense of responsibility, not to mention their habit of not making sense. In the US many feel a lack of responsibility, I imagine due to environmental regs, and drive SUVs purely out of a sense of fashion -- with a background in the industry I can assure you they have little practical purpose as commonly outfitted, underperforming both mini-vans and trucks for carrying people or going off road. For that matter I'd be extremely surprised if a 1/4 of the 4wd SUVs here ever saw gravel in their lifetimes; outfitted with off road tires and having a high center of gravity, they hardly take advantage of awd on the highway. Hopefully your sense of personal responsibility will catch on & become more popular here.
musicvid10 wrote on 1/19/2008, 5:07 PM
And I engage in hyperbole?
MSmart wrote on 1/20/2008, 11:32 PM
I used to spray discs (outside), but not any more since I started using TY Watershield discs.

Read HERE.
TOG62 wrote on 1/21/2008, 1:59 AM
FWIW, for those interested in H&S issues, it's actually illegal in the European Union to use PPE where the hazard could have been controlled at source, e.g. by use of local exhaust extraction. The UK Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (based on an EC directive) state;

"The main requirement of the PPE at Work Regulations 1992 is that personal
protective equipment is to be supplied and used at work wherever there are risks
to health and safety that cannot be adequately controlled in other ways." For more information [LINK=http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg174.pdf]

This link [LINK=http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24185] would seem to indicated that the same principle applies in the USA.

Mike
MPM wrote on 1/21/2008, 8:06 PM
First, apologies for wandering so far off topic -- my favorite answer to ID'ing a disc is made by Sharpie. ;-)

No apologies though -- except for being a poor writer -- for attempting to point out the practical, common sense advice to use a respirator when spraying, and not to rely *solely* on ventilation. "Have you ever smelled the fumes when using a spray can"? If so, you have inhaled harmful chemicals. If you sprayed outside or under a hood, and you still smelled the fumes (as I have often enough), then you have all the evidence you need. There's nothing I'm aware of in a can of spray paint or coating or adhesive etc. that is not harmful to life. Of course a high powered fan could be used to blow any fumes and particles away from your nose, but unless one's arms are *VERY* long, most of the spray never reached it's target.

"...would seem to indicated that the same principle applies in the USA."

I don't think the UK regs as I read them in your linked pdf would work in the US, though of course I have no pretense to being a lawyer or expert. In the US it's all about reasonable measures -- things that should have been reasonably done. In a TV courtroom, it's about reasonable doubt. In actual courts, it's about reasonable expectations. And regarding liability it's not taking reasonable steps that lead to negligence. Without that reasonable bit people would sue when lightning or other "act of God" harmed them.

The US doc, besides referring the supposed *suit* to someone more hands-on to explain it all, points to the basic nature of the beast: that there are a LOT of overlapping regs coming from different places with often differing primary focus. I hope, Mike, that you're not focusing on &/or mis-reading a portion of the US doc, perhaps inserting your personal read of the word *feasible* to mean something besides another word for reasonable...

The US doc states parts of different regs and says that the employer is responsible for making a reasonable effort to basically clean up the worker's environment. It's worded that they have to do it when feasible. Anything more and it'd be tossed out by the courts and/or Congress as being overly restrictive. Should it have been left out, then there's no limit to what a biz owner or boss could ask you to do, simply by claiming protective equipment was issued.

The US government & defense industries did take that road, several times in fact, especially from WWII through the '60s. They had divers in the water during nuclear tests, and supplied *just* gloves and aprons to folks working with radioactive materials. And just like the stretch of Fla coast south of NASA's operations, where the gov dumped rocket and aircraft fuel for decades, people have died.

To illustrate not feasible at any rate, if you've ever painted a car in a spray booth, It is not feasible to provide enough ventilation to protect the painter; fans have always been used to reduce the fog; exhaust has always been filtered to contain overspray. [In the old days spraying simple lacquers & enamels you might wear a paper mask or bandanna to keep your nose hairs from turning whatever color you were spraying] Environmental concerns & regs have spawned things like water running down the walls to trap particles as part of a recycling system, and paint systems that don't produce the same fog. However, the only way that ventilation could prevent the painter from inhaling harmful particles, fumes, and vapors from today's coatings would be if a wind tunnel was used, and unfortunately that would blow the wet paint right off the car. Therefore ventilation as sole means of protecting the painter are clearly not feasible, as they'd entirely defeat the purpose of painting the car, so you have to give him/her some sort of respirator or in some cases a complete suit -- it's hard to over-estimate the nastiness of today's coatings.

But that's just trivia based on the 2 docs linked anyway, totally OT and I guess maybe, maybe not of interest to you Mike or anyone else. At the end of the day if someone wants to use a spray, they will. If they want to use protection (I hope that they do), they will. If they don't because they disagree with what I've written, I've done my best so my conscience is clear. ;-)