CTV News | Laser printers emit worrisome dust, study finds

Health -   

Laser printers emit worrisome dust, study finds

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Todd Battis explains the printed pollution

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(24)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tue. Jul. 31 2007 9:37 PM ET

Office workers may be breathing in dangerous dust emitted from laser printers, finds a disturbing new study from Australian researchers.

The researchers found that certain printers release tiny particles into the air that could pose "a significant health threat" when inhaled into their lungs.

The researchers didn't analyze the chemical makeup of the particles but think that they come from the toner, the ultrafine powder used in laser printers instead of ink. They found that the printers emitted more dust when the toner cartridge was new, and when the printers were used for printing graphics, which require greater amounts of toner.

Lidia Morawska, a professor in the School of Physical & Chemical Sciences at the Queensland University of Technology and colleagues looked at 62 brands of printers. They classified 17 of them as "high particle emitters" because they released such elevated quantities of particles.

One of the printers released so many particles, it was at a rate comparable to the particle emissions from cigarette smoking.

On the other hand, 37 of the 62 printers didn't release enough dust to diminish air quality; six released low levels, and two, medium levels.

The study, to be published in the American Chemical Society's journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), included popular models sold under the names of Canon, HP Color Laserjet, Ricoh and Toshiba.

Morawska said her findings were made by accident. Her team had been testing a large, open-plan office in the Brisbane central business district to gauge the efficiency of ventilation in protecting office workers from outdoor air pollution.

What they found instead was that indoor particle levels in the office air increased five-fold during work hours due. They then realized the particles were coming from the printers.

"We really didn't expect to find anything from indoor sources (but) we soon discovered that the indoor sources of pollution were far higher than the outdoor sources," Morawska said. "We soon realized that we were seeing air pollution originating indoors, from laser printers."

Since the researchers don't know what chemicals lie in the printer dust, the health effects of breathing it in are unclear. But they could range from respiratory irritation to more severe illnesses, such as cancer, Morawska says.

As a result of the study, her team is calling on governments to consider regulating emission levels from laser printers.

"By all means, this is an important indoor source of pollution," she says. "There should be regulations."

  • Here is a full list of the results, based on the ratio of submicrometre particles emitted by various printers to the "normal" or base background particle concentration:

Non-emitters

(ratio equal to or less than 1)

Low Level Emitter

(ratio less than 1.1-5)

Middle Level Emitter (ratio less than 5.1-10)

High Level Emitter (ratio greater than 10)

 

HP Color LaserJet 4550DN (1)

 

Canon IRC6800 (1)

 

HP LaserJet 1020 (1)

 

HP Color LaserJet 4650dn (1)

 

HP Color LaserJet 8500DN (1)

 

HP LaserJet 5M (3)

 

HP LaserJet 4200dtn (1)

 

HP Color LaserJet 5550dtn (1)

 

HP LaserJet 2200DN (1)

 

HP LaserJet 9000dn (1)

   

HP Color LaserJet 8550N (1)

 

HP LaserJet 2300dtn (1)

 

RICOH CL3000DN (1)

   

HP LaserJet 1320N (1)

 

HP LaserJet 4 plus (1)

     

HP LaserJet 1320n (1)

 

HP LaserJet 4000N (1)

     

HP LaserJet 2420dn (1)

 

HP LaserJet 4000TN (1)

     

HP LaserJet 4200dtn (1)*

 

HP LaserJet 4050N (2)

     

HP LaserJet 4250n (old)

 

HP LaserJet 4050TN (6)

     

HP LaserJet 4250n (new)

 

HP LaserJet 4si (1)

     

HP LaserJet 5(a) (1)

 

HP LaserJet 5(b) (1)

     

HP LaserJet 8000DNa (1)

 

HP LaserJet 5000n (1)

     

HP LaserJet 8150N (1)

 

HP LaserJet 5100tn (2)

     

TOSHIBA Studio 450 (1)

 

HP LaserJet 5N (2)

     
 

HP LaserJet 5si (1)

     
 

HP LaserJet 5si/NX (1)

     
 

HP LaserJet 8000DN (2)

     
 

HP LaserJet 8150DN (3)

     
 

Mita DC 4060 (photo copy) (1)

     
 

RICOH Aficio 2022 (1)

     
 

RICOH Aficio 3045 (1)

     
 

RICOH Aficio 3245C (3)

     
 

RICOH Aficio CC3000DN (1)

     
 

TOSHIBA Studio 350 (1)

     

*Possible high emitter

Please Add Comments( )

Mark
said
0 0

So the researchers know the dust is there, but don't know the content of the particles and yet they are already calling for regulations to be implemented? Let's back up here.


KHT
said
0 0

I do not find this surprising at all. I agree we should regulate emissions from these kinds of devices. Let's not forget photocopiers too, as well as other items with electric motors that use carbon brushes and create carbon dust.
Many office buildings lack adequate ventilation as well, which combined with all of these office gadgets, is probably creating a significant health risk.


Glyn Evans
said
0 0

Er, why didn't they analyze the particles before making such a massive announcement to the world I wonder?


Jill
said
0 0

I hope they will release the names of the printers emitting the high quantity of particles. What about home office printers where children are breathing it?


daryl
said
0 0

Time for everyone to live in a bubble, next thing we know plain ordinary dust will be unhealthy and we'll need to live in space suits. Figure out what the dust is before saying it is unhealthy.

Corey
said
0 0

Would like to know more about this...is it paper dust (clay? pulp?), toner particles, ozone? What level of maintenance is being done?

Funny how regulation of things gets brought up without looking into the problems further.


Mike
said
0 0

I love how they compare one of the printer emissions to cigarette smoking. Yeah OK. My toaster burned my toast this morning and I think I'm getting lung cancer too with all that carbon. Or maybe its the radon in the water I shower with...


KKS
said
0 0

When I was still in the work force I once became victim of these particles. It was in the 80s and I had my work station very close to the room with the large host printers and large copiers. After a few weeks I felt very ill from which I recovered when the copier and printer room had its doors closed all the time and had improved ventilation.

Fred Nickerson
said
0 0

How long before the class action suit is launched against toner & printer companies???


Josh
said
0 0

Besides the composition of the particles, I am equally interested in knowing the particle's diameter. If the particles are small enough, they can still do harm, regardless of the composition.


Frank Gummett
said
0 0

The fact to be concerned about is the size of these particles that allow them to pass into the lungs and then in to the blood... it is not fair to compare that to smoke from a toaster. I for one would prefer to err on the side of safety when it comes to this kind of issue... anyone remember DDT or asbestos..?


G
said
0 0

Ok, it does not take a genius to figure this out - has anyone looked at the inside of these machines when changing a cartridge. To the comment regarding ozone - ozone is typically emitted from photocopiers and is a gas, so it is not particulate in matter. But back to the printer matter - the dust from the machine is bad -I agree with the others - how bad - give us a comparison!! The air in most of the country the past few weeks has been full of pollutants due to the humidity - that can't be good for us either!!


Scott
said
0 0

Let's be honest here, if these researchers said nothing and conducted further analysis of the particles and found them to be extremely toxic on a level that's scientifically significant for say, causing lung cancer or something, but hadn't said anything about it up until that point, the public would be outraged. "Why did they wait to tell us . . we should have been warned . . etc". These researchers are just doing what's right; providing us with information. If it turns out to be nothing, none the worse.


Becki
said
0 0

While I don't want to discount the study altogether, I'd be curious to know if they tested these same printers in different environments. Maybe the ventilation system is as much at fault? I worked in an office where people were often falling ill. We moved to another building, with a very similar set up and the same equipment. We didn't get sick nearly as much afterwards.


henry
said
0 0

Perhaps special studies should be done on workers who are constantly exposed to laser printers. Working in a print shop or a photocopying place is probably a health hazard.

Jane
said
0 0

The researchers didn't claim any specific health issues. They found the particle problem by accident, when studying ventilation efficiency. The news story also says they studied several well-known brands of printers - plus they said that 37 of the 62 printers studied did NOT release significant particles.
If you've ever worked in a photocopying area, or a high-volume laser printer area, you'll know the odour the machines cause. And that people often complain of headaches and nausea. Ventilation is key, and is strongly recommended by manufacturers. But of course, offices just install the things and tell you to use them.

Michael
said
0 0

Is David Suzuki or Al Gore behind this incomplete short on facts report? The next thing they will be telling us these machines are causing Global Warming! Did common sense die this year or what??

Anne
said
0 0

I am not surprised at this finding. I am also appalled at how long it has taken anyone to notice that there is a problem with emissions from photocopiers in general. Approximately 25 years ago, I worked for a company who decided to enclose their photocopier in a small room, and call it the "print" room. The room was not vented, and the copier was used to specifically run large print jobs. One of the main print operators became pregnant and continued working in this small environment. Unfortunately, when her child was born, there was a noticeable abnormality in the development of the child. The print operator began research of her own, to bring to light this incident. Suffice it to say, neither any government body or the manufacturer of the photocopier would admit that there was any dangerous emissions released into the air. Her efforts fell on deaf ears. After the birth of her child, no other operator would work continually in this room and eventually this room was dismantled. All was forgotten - except when you looked at this child. 25 years ago.

Chris
said
0 0

Well folks do you read a whole story before jumping on everything ?

"Morawska said her findings were made by accident." - Sounds to me like she's saying I found a problem.

"But they could range from respiratory irritation to more severe illnesses, such as cancer, Morawska says." - Was I the only one that read the word 'could' in that sentence ?

"The researchers didn't analyze the chemical makeup of the particles but think that they come from the toner" - Again I must have been the only one who read 'think'

Before getting all up in arms. Read the story.

Arjun K.C.
said
0 0

Hi all,
It is not surprising at all. Laser printers use thermoplastic particles with synthetic dyes all of which are carcinogenic. Think of Photocopiers, a pen you are using which may also contain the similar materials. It is due to the technological development approach we are taking.

Beyond Hope
said
0 0

This worries me. My husband and about 1499 other people all work at a call centre that deals with laser printers - colour, monochrome and all-in-one and there is a constant dust/air quality problem in the building. Makes me wonder if the printers they are giving support to are poisoning them!


Mark E
said
0 0

Particles within a work enviroment? Oh My God! Shut the place down Now! Seriously folks, I have a very, very hard time understanding how this article could possibly be listed as a "Top Story" when no one even knows what said particles are made up of. If they can kill you, and this is evident, then yes. That would be a concern. However, this study did not show this is likely. In fact, it is just as likely that these particles contain something healthy for you. Who can refute my last statement with any proof? Certainly not the people who did the study. This is just another case of media attempting to sensationalize something about nothing. The editor who allowed this to become public should be asked what exactly he was thinking.


James
said
0 0

Hey Mark,

If there was a bomb in your office but no one knew what it was made of, would you just ignore it? We know that particulate matter is bad for human health as the article pointed out with regards to cigarette smoke. Who knows maybe you work for Canon or HP.


Isabella
said
0 0

To answer an early question, most of the high emitters were HP LaserJets. The list is on different media sites reporting of this study.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz