Some Laser Printers as Bad as Secondhand Smoke
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 08. 1.07
Such were the findings from research recently undertaking at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. The researchers went to a six-storey office building in the states capital, Brisbane, planning to test its ventilation system. In the process they tested the buildings laser printers. About a third of the machines were considered to be high emitters of ultra fine particles, with 2 medium, 4 low and 23 were non emitters. (see complete list of models in the SF Chronicle article) The emissions they discovered both in the office and later in lab tests reveal the particles were fine enough to infiltrate the lungs, causing damage equal to inhaled cigarette smoke. The study found the problem of indoor quality increased five-fold during work hours due to printer use. Researchers determined that printers emitted more particles when new toner cartridge were installed, and when printing graphics and images, as they require greater quantities of toner. Their suggestions for improved health: better ventilation (and we assume that doesn’t mean re-circulated ‘conditioned’ air, chose non-emitting models of printers, place them as far from peoples desks as possible, and lobby for government regulated emission standards for laser printers. Oddly photocopiers were found to be “not nearly as problematic as the laser printers,” according to researcher, Professor Lidia Morawska (pictured). Via ABC Radio, The Age and San Francisco Chronicle (the latter also having a link to the complete study).
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 'Zero Emissions' Arctic Station Researchers Move In, Part I
- EWA Squeezes Water From Thin Air, Like In Old Biblical Times
- SF Bay Area Will be Electric Vehicle Capital of US: Better Place, Coulomb Technologies Expanding EV Infrastructure
- Greyhound Australia to Begin Carbon Offset Program
The smell from my printer drove me relocate it to the basement (via print-server). It's interesting to see that this may have been a good idea for other reasons.
Good study but a little irresponsible to present to the press. The age of the printer and cartridge probably had more to do with emissions than the printers, so naming them on a list without indicating the age of either printer or cartridge was totally discriminatory, even if people should know better than to read it that way. Choosing the printer probably would have minimal impact considering the influence of other factors like age of printer and cartridge, among others. The result "equal" to second hand smoke is a worst case experimented and was a little over 80%, not equal (1.6/1.9). Finally, running a whole bunch of printers over a few days to test is probably not a realistic office scenario. God forbid if we really printed that much all the time! They drew the right conclusions in the study, but hardly pointed out the important stuff to the press, and I know why, but that doesn't mean I understand why. Please read the study critically and conclude for yourself.