Access the most recent editions of Ink World Magazine, featuring timely industry insights and innovations.
Read the interactive online version of Ink World Magazine, complete with enhanced features and multimedia content.
Join our global readership—subscribe to receive Ink World Magazine in print or digital formats, and stay informed on key trends and breakthroughs.
Connect with decision-makers in the ink industry through strategic advertising opportunities in Ink World Magazine and online platforms.
Review submission standards and guidelines for contributing articles and content to Ink World Magazine.
Understand how we collect, use, and protect your data when you engage with Ink World Magazine.
Review the legal terms governing your use of Ink World Magazines website and services.
Stay current with breaking developments, business updates, and product launches across the global ink industry.
Explore in-depth articles covering key technologies, trends, and challenges facing ink manufacturers and suppliers.
Access exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes stories, and original reporting not found anywhere else.
A one-on-one interview conducted by our editorial team with industry leaders in our market.
Gain insight from industry thought leaders as they share analysis on market shifts, regulatory changes, and technological advances.
Review market data, forecasts, and trends shaping the ink and printing sectors worldwide.
Visualize data and industry insights through engaging infographics that highlight key stats and trends.
Browse photo galleries showcasing events, product innovations, and company highlights.
Watch interviews, demonstrations, and event coverage from across the ink and printing value chain.
Short, impactful videos offering quick updates and insights on industry topics.
Stay updated on trends and technologies in pigment development.
Learn how additives influence ink performance and characteristics.
Discover advancements in resin technologies and their impact on ink properties.
Explore the latest printing and manufacturing equipment used across various ink applications.
Explore UV, EB, and other curing technologies that improve ink efficiency and sustainability.
Discover tools used in R&D and quality control processes.
Focused on inks used in labels, flexible packaging, and cartons.
Coverage on inks for newspapers, magazines, and books.
Insights into inkjet, toner, and other digital printing solutions.
Updates on offset sheetfed inks used in commercial printing.
News on UV and EB curing inks.
Explore screen printing ink technologies.
Niche and high-performance ink formulations for specific applications.
Electrically conductive inks for electronics and printed sensors.
Innovations in printable electronic components.
Developments in printed OLEDs, LEDs, and display technologies.
Printed solar cells and materials used in energy generation.
Explore electronics printed directly into molded surfaces.
Advances in smart tagging and communication technologies.
Global leaders across Europe, Asia, and beyond.
Major ink producers in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Source suppliers and service providers across the ink value chain.
Locate authorized distributors of ink and raw materials.
Browse manufacturers and vendors offering inks, equipment, and materials.
A listing of ink manufacturers based in the United States.
Directory of ink producers across Europe.
Detailed insights into products, processes, and innovations from leading ink companies.
Find definitions for common terms used throughout the ink and printing industries.
Comprehensive digital guides on specific ink technologies and markets.
Research-driven reports offering analysis and solutions to industry challenges.
Marketing materials from suppliers showcasing products and services.
Company-sponsored articles offering expert insight, case studies, and product highlights.
Company announcements, product launches, and corporate updates.
Browse job openings in the ink and coatings industries and connect with potential employers.
Calendar of major trade shows and professional gatherings.
On-site event coverage and updates.
Virtual sessions led by industry experts.
What are you searching for?
The final PV29 risk evaluation, announced by EPA on Jan. 14, produced mixed results, according to an analysis conducted by CPMA.
February 17, 2021
By: David Wawer
CPMA Executive Director
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, or amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), implemented a new regulatory approach for the evaluation of existing chemicals in commerce when it became law in 2016. C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) was one of the first 10 chemicals selected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undergo this new evaluation process. Since the beginning of the PV29 evaluation, the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association (CPMA) stepped forward as the industry’s technical and scientific resource, actively engaging with the Agency at every step of the four-year process. The final PV29 risk evaluation, announced by EPA on Jan. 14, produced mixed results, according to an analysis conducted by CPMA. While CPMA is satisfied with certain aspects of the final risk evaluation, several conclusions in the document are not consistent with widely acknowledged science or specialty/batch chemical manufacturing. This particular evaluation was precedential because it utilized the first test orders issued by EPA under the expanded authority created by the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA. CPMA compliments the Agency on the final evaluation’s statements that the solubility reports resulting from the test orders “were determined to be high quality,” and that “[t]hese studies confirm that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is an insoluble particulate substance; that there is no expectation that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 will be taken up by fat solubility; and confirms that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is not expected to bioaccumulate.” CPMA believes the Agency got the science right on the matter of solubility. This important finding should be carried forward in EPA’s risk evaluations of other color pigments, as color pigments are solids that are insoluble in, and essentially physically and chemically unaffected by, the vehicle or substrate in which they are incorporated. Furthermore, CPMA believes the Agency should utilize this finding when conducting risk evaluations of other chemical substances that form stable particulates. EPA also correctly determined there is no exposure to color pigment particles in workplaces that process plastic masterbatches containing PV29 into molded parts or fibers. This determination rested on EPA’s use of appropriate information pertaining to the plastic masterbatch sector of the color pigments industry value chain. Again, this conclusion should be applicable to all future risk evaluations of color pigments. CPMA is also pleased that EPA retained its originally proposed findings of no unreasonable risk to the environment, consumers, or the general public, or from distribution of PV29. CPMA disagrees, however, with EPA’s finding of risk to humans in manufacturing or processing PV29 based on subclinical effects found in rodents exposed to carbon black, an inappropriate analog to PV29. CPMA technical comments to the Agency dispelled any scientific relevance to humans of such effects. CPMA also emphasized that it is unreasonable for EPA to surmise that these effects could be precursors to undisputedly adverse health effects like fibrosis, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – especially since the sole U.S. manufacturer of PV29 has not observed any instances of workers experiencing non-malignant respiratory disease caused by exposures to workplace dust in its 40 years of operation. EPA’s conclusions are based on scientific speculations, not reality. CPMA is also quite disappointed that EPA disregarded fundamental facts about the behavior of color pigment particles in assuming that workplace dust at sites manufacturing or processing color pigments could be made up of primary particles, rather than agglomerated pigment particles. Finally, CPMA’s analysis concludes the workplace air exposure monitoring study conducted pursuant to a Section 4 test order was performed correctly and in agreement with the terms of the approved study plan. The Agency’s decision to disregard, or discount, valid air monitoring data using the approved methodology will give others pause the next time EPA seeks to issue Section 4 test orders in risk evaluations involving specialty/batch chemical manufacturing. While the final risk evaluation reaches mixed conclusions, CPMA will continue to engage with EPA to ensure the risk management rule that follows is relevant and reasonable in addressing areas described as presenting unreasonable risk. For more information, contact David Wawer, CPMA Executive Director, at (571) 348-5106, or [email protected].
Enter the destination URL
Or link to existing content
Enter your account email.
A verification code was sent to your email, Enter the 6-digit code sent to your mail.
Didn't get the code? Check your spam folder or resend code
Set a new password for signing in and accessing your data.
Your Password has been Updated !