Re: laser toner

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I add:

An important point is not only is it (anything) toxic, but also does it
reach the alveoli?  I suspect just about anything that reaches the
alveoli will irritate them.  Nevertheless, according to my previous
post, toner is considerably less toxic than asbestos, or even coal dust
and cotton lint.  The link below indicates that toner is on the edge *
of ability to reach the alveoli and why that is important for chemical
toxicity (Biological is another matter.).

* JD's reference:

"This raw toner is then ground to a powder by jet mills or air-swept
hammer mills. These processes produce a wide variety of particle sizes.
The over-size and under-size toner particles are sifted out in a 1 to 3
pass process."
.........
"For toner produced this way, an average toner particle of about 8
microns is about as small as you can get without astronomical costs."
..........
"Toner manufacturers aren't slow to present us with a laundry list of
benefits inherent in the chemical toner approach. Smaller particles can
be made precisely - down to 4 microns. Half the size of the smallest
particle that can feasibly be produced by the traditional milling
process, it takes one hundred 4 micron toner particles to make your
average full-stop."


http://www.sparklecleanllc.com/ParticlesAreTiny.htm


My conclusion: not to worry -- worry more about bacteria laden house
dust and allergens.

bc

p.s. since the UK report was done last year, one can assume the toner
examined is typical of current use.

Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> Hazard assessed:
> The use of toner in photocopiers within the School of Computing Sciences
> - both in terms of
> chemicals inserted into the machine and chemicals generated during
> operation of the machine. The
> laser aspect of the copier is dealt with separately under the "laser and
> intense light source"
> assessment.
> Who is at risk:
> Photocopier users and, to a larger extent, staff who insert toner.
> Likelihood of event occurring:
> Highly unlikely - no harmful events in recent knowledge.
> Severity of injury/harm:
> Slightly harmful - toner chemicals may cause those with sensitive
> skin/airways to
> experience discomfort but the toners are actually not defined as toxic
> and are not known to cause
> irritation - i.e. there are no specialist personal protection needs
> stipulated in the documentation.
> Whilst one of the ingredients of the toner, Carbon Black, was revaluated
> as a Group 2B1 carcinogen -
> based on lab rat experiments where particle overload of the lungs with
> just Carbon Black was
> performed. Subsequent studies involving a toner (which used this
> substance as a constituent part)
> did not show any carcinogenic qualities during its two-year inhalation
> test on animals. From this we
> imply that, at office exposure levels, this product does not increase
> the risk of developing cancer.
> Ozone generated during the printing process is given as 0.0074ppm on the
> 220 model
> without ozone filter and 0.0059ppm on the 700 units with the ozone
> filter attached (the legal limit is
> 0.2ppm). Ozone can cause headaches, dryness of throat, eyes and nose
> but, because of the nature of
> ozone, concentrations dissipate within a few minutes.
> Control measures put in place:
> The construction of the toner bottle is such that inhalation and contact
> with skin ......
>
> Ranking of risk:
> Overall risk defined as "trivial".
>
>
> www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/web/information/ safety/Photocopier_assess.pdf
>
> More:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=toner+carcinogenic&btnG=Google+Search
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=toner+carcinogenic&btnG=Google+Search>
>
> bc
>
> John Denker wrote:
>
>
>
> > Quoting Herbert H Gottlieb <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>:
cut

> > Don't play with it without taking proper precautions.  Like all
> > fine powders, you don't want to get it in your lungs.  Also, it
> > makes a mess.