CTP Developer Reusing/Recycling?

[Hopkins Printing]

Just curious if anyone is filtering/reusing/recycling their CTP chemistries.

Thanks,
Jon :-)

[Dan Roll]

This may not be very environmentally friendly advice, but CTP developer rapidly accumulates billions of minute particles of suspended emulsion (just a few plates is all it takes) that are all to happy to distribute themselves over the background of the plate and cause sensitivity. Rather than recycle, developer should be replaced with fresh chemistry as often as you are willing to do it. I do not even think printers should use developer replenisher, as any money saved in the plate room is quickly wasted in the press room.

[Hopkins Printing]

I have heard of a system that is supposed to filter/absorb such contaminants to help extend the life of the developer while also pulling fresh developer and mixing it with the used developer.

Anyone heard of/using any such system?

Thanks,
Jon

[Dan Roll]

Most ctp emulsions have particle sizes <50 nanometers, hard to filter.......

[Kevin@Kodak]

I have heard of a system that is supposed to filter/absorb such contaminants to help extend the life of the developer while also pulling fresh developer and mixing it with the used developer.

Anyone heard of/using any such system?

Thanks,
Jon

Jon - we (Kodak) actually offer such a system with some of our plate types, but not for all. Different plate/chemical technologies respond differently to that kind of treatment. We officially support it with our own unit for our preheat plates such as Thermal Gold and Thermal Platinum. We have a few high-volume customers using it successfully (but unsupported) for Sword Excel too.

There are 3rd-party versions too, but your mileage may vary when using them depending on your volumes, expectations, plate and chemistry type, processor setup, and even your cleaning regime/frequency.

Reducing chemical use from both a cost and environmental perspective is very important. However, as a supplier our priority has to be reliability and consistency first. As another comment highlights, a few dollars saved in prepress can quickly cost you many more in the pressroom if you're not diligent.

Certainly improvements on this front are high on the R&D priority list for everyone these days.

Kevin.

[Mark Wiedener]

There are many products out that claim that they can complete this task and some are better than others. Like anything, it's about research and education. I have worked with many units that simply use particle filters, this will not do. The media utilized and the way it is installed is critical. The unit I am thinking of will offer a free money back guarantee; what more can you ask for than seeing for yourself. I was skeptical also when I first heard of this. Installation is simple, maintenance is a simple filter change per bath cycle and the unit is small and not invasive.

I have seen reduction units work countless times and on all types of processors using differnet plates and chemistries (Southern Litho, Kodak, Agfa, Konica ...). I have even seen companies using conventional plates utilize the same filters for increasing their plates per bath. Film processors and polyester plate processors can also benefit by this technology with some modification.

If waste emulsion in the bath can be removed during use it makes sense that you should be able to create the same plates with less "fresh" chemistry. "Shocking" the processor with fresh chemistry is not just un-environmental but not economical.

If interested in more details email me at mark@greenflow.com to get the list of references that I know of using this technology and hear from printers themselves utilizing this technology.