You are on page 1of 12

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks

A New Path Forward—Part 1
by John Lind, Director of Research, GATF, John Stack, Chemist, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health/National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, and Eric T. Everett, Q-Panel Lab Products

Real-World Exposures in Florida & Arizona
How can you know whether an ink will remain fade
resistant under the variety of lighting conditions that it may
encounter during its service life? What is the cost of product
failure? What is the price/performance trade-off between
affordability and performance? Is there a quick and easy
way to determine (or decide) which ink is best for your
This article is first in a three-part series that will answer
these questions and provide a useful roadmap for assessing
ink durability. Part 1 presents results from real-world
sunlight through glass window exposures in Florida and
Arizona. These internationally recognized test locations
provide a “worst case” scenario by exposing inks to high UV,
high temperatures, and high relative humidity.
Part 2 will show how accelerated lab exposures mimic
real-world results. Part 3 will provide guidance and recom-
mendations on how to determine which ink is best for
Q-Lab Weathering Research Service Test Facilities in Florida and
your needs. This definitive study correlates real-world and
Arizona performed fade resistance testing of lithographic inks in
accelerated laboratory test results for lithographic inks. extreme environments.
Test Program
Sunlight contains short wavelength UV and visible and
infrared energy. UV is the primary cause of degradation in
inks, with temperature and moisture acting as secondary
stressors that can accelerate the rate of degradation.
Lithographic inks may encounter intense sunlight by
being placed near a window, or worse yet, placed on a car
dashboard during the summer months, where they will likely
encounter high UV, high temperatures, and high humidity.
Florida and Arizona test locations were chosen for this study
because they provide these extreme environments.
GATF selected eight widely-used lithographic ink colors:
Yellow #1, Yellow #2, Yellow #3, Magenta, Violet, Orange,
Red, and Purple. A Little Joe Proofing Press was used to
make prints at typical offset film thicknesses. The inks were
printed on a typical, coated, 70-pound paper substrate.
Replicates of each ink color were printed for all of the
exposures. GATF technical staff selected eight representative lithographic ink
The ink test specimens were tested by Q-Lab Weather- colors printed on a standard substrate for fade resistance testing.
ing Research Service in Florida and Arizona. They were
placed in glass-covered cabinets, angled at 45 degrees south,

28 GATFWorld April 2004

various outdoor exposure tests after ninety days in Florida This graph is a powerful example showing the wide range and Arizona: of durability between three different inks of the same color. A performed dramatically better than either Yellow B or Yel- ity in the inks. significant differences in their fade resistance.73 was recorded for each specimen.e. A spectrophotometer was Florida Winter 90 Days 1541. After ninety days. Some pigments had excellent fade resistance. Yellow A is a fade-resistant yellow. tance.Fade Resistance Range for Eight Colors. The total color change. to maximize exposure of sunlight filtered through window TABLE 1: Total Sunlight Outdoor Exposure Summary glass.54 D2244. the majority of ink test specimens were Florida and Arizona Exposures severely faded and not useful for analysis.17 before. Table 1 shows the total light energy intensity (i. Winter Solstice (12/21/02). and after exposure. In fact.20 perform a visual color assessment of inks or to have instru- mental color measurements performed by a qualified test lab. expressed in delta E units. The Yellow As the graph illustrates.13 used to take the color measurements in accordance to ASTM Florida Spring 90 Days 1252. suitable for while others had very poor fade resistance. outdoor exposures. during. thirty-five days was Spring Equinox (3/21/03) and Summer Solstice (6/21/03). Graph 1 shows the fade resistance performance of the Even though they all were the same color. chosen to evaluate the performance of the inks in the various The Arizona exposure test was started in the fall (10/7/02). However. Florida Summer 90 Days 1081. they had very eight ink colors during the Florida Fall exposure. The sunlight through window glass spectrum was MJ/m2 at 300–3000nm chosen because it best simulates worst-case indoor lighting conditions. Note: It is also possible to Arizona Fall 90 Days 1611. fine art reproductions or outdoor applications. there is a wide range of durabil. the inks exhibited a wide range of fade resis- vals: Fall Equinox (9/21/02). Therefore. by Florida exposure tests were started at four seasonal inter. from excellent to poor. radiant Graph 2 shows the range of durability for the three dosage) expressed in megajoules/m2 at the conclusion of the yellow ink test specimens in the Florida Fall exposure. racks in Florida and Arizona benchmark locations. Exposure Days MJ/m2 The ink test specimens were measured for color change Florida Fall 90 Days 1926. Ink specimens were placed in ASTM G24 glass-covered exposure Graph 1 . while Yellow B and C are intended for general commercial printing. low C. April 2004 GATFWorld 29 . thirty-five days.

78 0.20 Avg delta E 44.Fade Resistance Correlation Effect of Seasonal Variation the Florida Fall exposure.18 27. various Florida seasonal exposures and Arizona exposure: In order to quantify the difference in the seasonal rates Graph 3 compares the Florida Fall (35 days) and of degradation.38 46.68 3.38 12.03 2.33 28.79 11.20 38. However.Fade Resistance Range for One Color Graph 3 . delta E Color Change of Inks in Various Outdoor Exposures Specimen FL Fall FL Winter FL Spring FL Summer AZ Fall Avg.37 12. (thirty-five days).01 Yellow C 89.44 21.93 Purple 33.81 88.18 45.02 8.85 29. the Fall exposure was Because the natural exposures were so short-term approximately 2-to-1 more severe than the Winter exposure.94 0. delta E 35 days 35 days 35 days 35 days 35 days Yellow A 3.21 8. the test was repeated at seasonal intervals Because the rate varies by season. Such inconsistency may not play a factor when resistance rankings.37 29. the average delta E value of all the correlation between the two exposures.18 Violet 73.23 25.94 38. you should not compare to determine the effect of time of year on degradation.82 4.52 Red 18. There was perfect rank order* compared. The absolute values of specimens exposed at different times of results showed that the time of year did not affect the fade the year.71 3. while it is 44 for Table 2.19 11.23 20.82 31.65 95.58 30 GATFWorld April 2004 . the average delta E (at 35 days) can be Winter (45 days) exposures.52 5. there was a dif.06 11.36 105. In this case.49 10.40 Magenta 5.40 Orange 23.36 20. inks in the Florida Winter exposure is 21.82 86.80 2. All seasonal exposures correlated with using accelerated fade testing equipment.56 2.05 30. Table 2 shows the each other in terms of rank order.02 Yellow B 106.Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks: A New Path For ward Graph 2 .98 55.94 25.29 3.60 10.65 12.23 8. For example.90 39. total delta E color change for all inks after 35 days for the ference in the rate of degradation.47 13.41 87.30 21.

93 1.96 on may also affect its stability. exposures. Florida and Everett.0 0.90 and above) for all of the outdoor exposures. In thirty- Arizona Exposure five days. Part 3 will offer 1. 2002) that the substrate that an ink is printed Rank Order = 0.0) between the two seasonal exposures. with excellent fade resistance from pigments with poor fade resistance. under glass exposures. Again. Outdoor exposures are highly useful for fade resistance testing of any ink. Florida at 35 days: 5.95 0.93 0. All outdoor exposures correlated with each other. FL Summer FL Fall FL Winter FL Spring AZ Fall resented as a value of 1.98 is represented as a value of –1. Florida FL Spring 0.0 2. provided recommendations on how to develop a quick and easy way an extreme environment and quickly separated pigments to determine which ink is best for your needs. Because it has been reported (Tobias Arizona vs.90 represented as a value of 0. Both Florida and Arizona. Winter Table 3. (0.0. Part 2 test results will show how the Q-Sun Xenon Arc Conclusions (Part 1) correlated with the outdoor exposures. Summer Rank Order = 1. the time of year did not make a results were obtained in the same time period (thirty-five difference in ranking performance of inks. rank order values were all very good ink be tested on a variety of substrates. April 2004 GATFWorld 31 . Negative rank order correlation FL Fall 0.0 — 0. Seasonal vari- days) as the Florida exposures.96 Graph 4 compares Florida Winter (45 days) vs.Fade Resistance Correlation Florida: Fall vs. The Arizona exposures indicate that fast test 4.97 0.93 — (1. ability only made a difference in the speed of degradation.98 — 1.0.98 0.0.90 0. FL Winter 0. there was excellent rank order AZ Fall 0. Random rank order correlation is FL Summer — 0.96 0. In this series of tests.97 — 0. the relative durability of all ink specimens was The Arizona exposure correlated well with the Florida determined. Rank Order Correlation Matrix Rank Order = 1.Fade Resistance Correlation Graph 5 . *Perfect rank order correlation is rep. All outdoor exposures were fast and effective. it is recommended that the As shown in Table 3. Florida: Winter vs.98 0. Graph 4 .98 0.98 0. 3.93 Summer (35 days). Graph 5 compares Arizona vs.95 0.

State. America’s Premier Industry Events Make the Connection . ■ GRAPH EXPO® and CONVERTING EXPO® • October 10 – 13. . 2004 1899 Preston White Dr. 2005 Reston. . VA 20191-4367 Name Title USA Company E-Mail E-Mail: Address Phone: 703/264-7200 City. 2004 GASC® ■ GUTENBERG FESTIVAL® • June 17 – 19. Please Send Me More Information About: ■ Attending ■ Exhibiting Return form to: ■ ® VUE/POINT CONFERENCE • March 29 – 31. Zip. 2004 ■ GRAPHIC ARTS THE CHARLOTTE SHOW® • March 17 – GATFWorld Distribution Sponsor . Country Fax: 703/620-9187 Telephone Fax www.

Should Attend this Workshop • Web press operators • Assistant press operators April 2004 GATFWorld 33 . Dallas. 2004 (Code G1051004) Your Press Operators Will Learn Workshop Leader • Fundamental web operations and how to evaluate press-related Greg Workman is a multicolor press operator at GATF’s state-of- problems the-art production facility. With over twenty years experience in • Techniques that can be put to use in your” GATFWorld May/June 2001. Inc. June 25–29.” IS&T Publications 2002. through equip. Workman is also a • The quality control measurements you have to understand in certified press operator by the National Council for Skills Standard order to obtain superior color reproduction for web and sheetfed presses. He can be reached Air Blanket® & Quik Dry® infrared drying systems at 440-835-8700 or email eeverett@q-panel. Everett. anti-marking systems See us at: drupa 2004. The hands-on • Manufacturing representatives portion of the workshop offers the opportunity to immediately apply and reinforce what the workshop attendee learned.” Tobias.Further Reading Lucas.html or contact Sara Hantz at 412-741-6860 x113 or via Others in Your Company Who e-mail at shantz@gatf. Everett is a standards administrator Make it Happen for Q-Panel Lab Products with ten years experience in stan. Russell H. “Standard Practice for Conducting It’s not dry!? Exposures to Daylight Filtered Through Glass.gain. Hall 15. Julie. the printing industry. • What you must do to keep your pressroom crew operating at For additional information about this workshop or other GATF’s peak efficiency technical “Keep Your True Colors: Lightfastness and Weathering Testing. he offers real-world knowledge as an ment demonstrations that bring concepts to life instructor in a number of GATF workshops. – www. and operate with less supervision. “Test Method for Calculation of Color Differences from Instrumentally Measured Color Coordinates. reduce • Maintenance staff waste counts.TX 75220 USA (800) 627-5537 or (214) 353-9000 Fax: (214) 357-5847 GATFWorld Distribution Sponsor W E B O F F S E T P R E S S O P E R AT I N G W O R K S H O P GATF’s Web Offset Press Operating workshop is comprehensive • Roll tenders training that will help your web press staff improve uptime. Stand B14-5 Printing Research. For more info visit www. This Workshop Dates workshop is a great way to educate pressroom staff on the workshop. ASTM G24. 2004 (Code G1050604) mentals of web offset press operations! October 25–29.” What do you mean. visit http://www. and Eric T. AIRS® automated impurity removal systems SUPER BLUE 2® anti-static. “Lightfastness Studies of Water-Based Inkjet Inks on Coated and Uncoated Eric T. ASTM D2244.q-panel. with these Innovative Solutions: dards development and has authored several articles and ‘Cold’™ & Zone™ ultraviolet curing systems technical papers addressing light 10954 Shady Trail. Q-Panel Lab Products is a global provider of light stability and weatherability products and services.

The inks were full-featured xenon tester with precise control of RH (Xe-3). A Little Joe Proofing Press was used to without RH controls (Xe-1). April 2004). Iden- We conducted exposures in different models to see if we tical replicates of each ink color were printed for all of the could get the same results. red. printed on a typical. the ink industry has used accelerated labo- ratory tests to get fast results. and temperature. Q-Sun testers are available in tabletop and full-sized models The Test Program GATF and Q-Panel’s Q-Lab Weathering Research Ser. purple. orange. al. John Stack. this GATF/Q-Panel study used Q-Sun Xenon Testers equipped with “window glass filters”to achieve an appropriate spectrum. Conse- quently. direct sunlight coming through the window is the most severe indoor lighting con- dition. In Part 1 (GATFWorld. light intensity. GATF. relative humidity (RH). including magenta. We wanted to deter. 2003). while the other was a full-size. Xenon arc testers are widely used because they provide fast results by accelerating critical environmental stresses such as light spectrum. produce prints at typical offset film thickness. mine (1) how well did the lab exposures mimic actual. and Eric T. we presented test results from actual “sunlight through the window” exposures in Florida and Arizona. Q-Panel Lab Products The purpose of our overall study was to (1) quantify the fade resistance of typical lithographic inks in an environment which approaches “worst case” service conditions. Our primary reason for doing expo- sure tests in these extreme environments was to see if our lithographic inks would remain fade resistant in a very severe indoor environment. vice tested ink specimens in Q-Sun Xenon Test Chambers. and to (3) identify test methods which provide quick and easy ways to evaluate ink performance. violet. For most indoor products. we now present results of laboratory xenon arc exposures performed on an identical set of lithographic ink specimens. and three One xenon tester was a small. window-filtered daylight dominates the indoor lighting envi- ronment in homes (Bugner. and (2) how much faster were the lab exposures compared to the natural exposures? Why Xenon Arc Testing? Historically. (2) estab- lish a reasonable benchmark for fade resistance testing of inks. coated. 24 GATFWorld June 2004 . exposures.Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks: A New Path Forward—Part 2 by John Lind. Our goals were two-fold. GATF and Q-Lab tested inks in Q-Sun Xenon test chambers. Research Lab Technician. 70-pound paper substrate. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. A recent Kodak study concluded that even indirect. Director of Research. In Part 2. Everett. less-expensive “tabletop” unit different yellows. GATF selected eight widely-used lithographic ink colors. LaBarca et. real- world exposures with regard to their actual degradation mode and relative rank order.

plastics. As it happens. these extreme. during. In about a month. Graph 4 compares the exposures after ten days. Method 3 D2244. and a variety of art reproductions or outdoor applications. Regardless of the season or To determine the effect of RH. Delta E (total color change) was recorded for each specimen. (Xe-1).55 W/m2/nm at 340 nm Q-Sun Test Results Relative Humidity: Xe-1 Effective RH = 15% After ten days.6 80 Delta E 70 1. Sunlight-Through-Window Glass 130 2. and after Q-Sun Xenon (Xe-1 & Xe-3) exposure using a spectrophotometer in accordance to ASTM ASTM D3424. Exposure Cycle: Continuous Light at 63 ± 3˚C (145 ± 5˚F) Graph 2 shows the fade resistance performance of the eight ink colors in a Q-Sun Xe-1. which are yellow ink with excellent fade resistance is designed for fine widely used for testing paints. Q-Sun With Window Glass Filter Q-Sun Fade Resistance Range vs. Sunlight Graph 2 .35 W/m2 @ 340 nm 100 90 Irradiance (W/m2) 1. The only real differences among the where the effective relative humidity was approximately 15% natural exposures were in the speed of degradation. are designed for general commercial printing.Q-Sun Fade Resistance of Eight Litho Inks Through Window Glass Xenon Arc Exposure Test Conditions Inks were measured for color before. while the others other materials.8 40 30 0. June 2004 GATFWorld 25 . This a high-UV. the tests were fast and effective and the relative rankings a Q-Sun which controlled RH at 50% (Xe-3-H) and another of the inks were very similar. one of the In Part 1. Graph 3 shows the range of durability for the three yellow ink test specimens in Q-Sun Xe-1.0 0 1 2 3 4 7 10 14 17 21 24 28 31 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Wavelength (nm) Days Graph 1 . the inks were exposed in location.0 0. sunlight through window glass exposures provided yellow inks performed much better than the others. Florida and Arizona Summary Although their initial appearance was similar.Q-Sun Xenon Arc with Window Glass Filter vs. Window Glass Filter Irradiance Level: 0.2 60 50 0.4 Sunlight through Q-Sun Xenon Arc 120 Window Glass with Window Glass Filter 110 2. high-temperature and high-relative humidity (RH) shows the range of durability possible in various ink formula- exposure environment for our inks. We exposed inks in the tions and illustrates the value of testing. Test Duration: 31 Days Both xenon arc exposures were also able to sort out the Total Radiant Exposure = 1473 kJ/m2 at 340 nm yellow inks with excellent fade resistance from those with poor fade resistance.4 20 10 0. the benchmark exposure locations of Florida and Arizona. both models of Q-Sun tester discrimi- Xe-3 RH = 50% nated the good performing inks from bad performing inks. real-world test environ- ments quickly separated inks with excellent fade resistance from Relative Humidity those inks with poor fade resistance. textiles.

For ence for these particular inks.98 FL Winter 0.0 0.97 0. Arizona.98 0.90 0.93 0.Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks—Par t 2 Q-Sun Fade Resistance Effect of Relative Humidity Range For 3 Yellow Inks delta E 120 120 110 110 100 100 Q-Sun 15% RH 90 90 80 80 70 70 delta E 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 1 2 3 4 7 10 14 17 21 24 28 31 Q-Sun 50% RH Rank Order = 0.93 AZ Fall 0. value of –1. Rank Order Correlation Matrix Q-Sun FL Summer FL Fall FL Winter FL Spring AZ Fall Xenon 35 Days 35 Days 35 Days 35 Days 35 Days Q-Sun Xenon — 0.95 0. For Part 2.88 0. of 1. Graph 5 compares the Q-Sun expo.98 Days Graph 3 .88 FL Summer 0.98 0. Q-Sun Compared to Florida In Part 1. Negative rank order correlation is represented as a five days.97 — 0.98 — 1.83 0.98 0.90 FL Fall 0.95 0. this particular set of test specimens. we established a benchmark for fade resistance As shown in Table 1.98 0. RH made very little differ.97 0. we wanted to compare benchmark data * Perfect rank order agreement is represented as a value with the Q-Sun results.83 0.93 — 26 GATFWorld June 2004 .98 — 0.0 — 0.96 FL Spring 0. In this comparison. approximately equivalent to thirty-five days in Florida.98 0. Although the numerical results were not identical. Random rank order correlation is represented as a value sure at 10 days to the Florida Under-Glass exposure at thirty.Relative humidity had no noticeable effect on fade resistance There was excellent correlation. of zero. the results show perfect rank order* correlation between the two exposures. the Q-Sun at ten days was Table 1. the Q-Sun provided an acceleration factor of almost four-to-one.93 1. rank order values for the Q-Sun and testing of inks in the extreme environments of Florida and outdoor exposures were all very good.97 0.95 0.95 0.Q-Sun Fade Resistance for 3 Yellow Inks Graph 4 .

“Keep Your True Colors: Lightfastness and draw the following conclusions: Weathering Testing. al. “Survey of Envi- season. May/June 2001 1. the Q-Sun Tobias. the Q-Sun repro. Regardless of the Laboratories. Laboratory Light Sources duced thirty-five days of Florida under glass exposure. The Q-Sun was fast. Conclusions Further Reading Part 1 established real world benchmark data for the fade Bugner. The Q-Sun Xe-1 tabletop xenon tester gave the same the Relative Lightfastness and Weatherability of Printed test results as the more expensive Q-Sun Xe-3 xenon tester. the acceleration factor Light Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials ranged from about four-to-one to almost seven-to-one. Consumer Homes. Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Depending upon the time of the year.” GATFWorld. However.The Q-Sun showed a very high correlation with Florida Even the smallest lab can afford a tabletop tester like the Q-Sun. Julie. Everett. Standard Practice for Exposing Non- difference in the test results. The Q-Sun Xe-1 is easy to use.” IS&T Publications 2003. we can Lucas. Just like the Florida and Arizona exposures. metallic Materials in Accelerated Test Devices That Use 3. a word of caution. ASTM G155. et. the Q-Sun exposures correlated very well with the established outdoor exposure benchmark data. Russell H. Research & Development resistance of these particular litho inks. Standard Test Methods for Evaluating 2. Florida (35 Days) vs. In Part 2. Douglas. and Eric T. Although Studies of Water-Based Inkjet Inks on Coated and Uncoated no accelerated lab test can replace actual real-world Papers. exposures. Eastman Kodak Company. ASTM D3424. June 2004 GATFWorld 27 . In only ten days. These acceleration factors may not be valid for other sets of inks. “Lightfastness Xenon separated the good inks from the bad inks.” IS&T Publications 2002. Matter For this particular study. Q-Sun (10 Days) delta E 120 110 100 90 80 70 Q-Sun 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Florida Rank Order = 0.98 Graph 5 . the Florida and Arizona under-glass exposures ronmental Conditions Relative to Display of Photographs in quickly (thirty-five days) sorted out inks with good fade resis. tance from inks with poor fade resistance. RH did not make a noticeable ASTM G151.

How can you quantify whether a given appropriate testing protocol to help you determine which ink formulation is acceptable? is best for your needs. and (3) use standardized test methods for a quick and easy means to evaluate ink performance. Our goals were to (1) test the fade resistance of typical lithographic inks under “worst-case.. you should In order to design an appropriate test program and design a test that captures the “worst-case” environment. we presented test results from “sunlight through window glass” exposures in the extreme environ- ments of Florida and Arizona. There are a myriad of to have a firm understanding of your product by defining other factors that can cause product degradation besides UV these four criteria: light: temperature. Application. PIA/GATF.. are you testing your ink to: marks to evaluate how your product will perform. This was done to determine if our lithographic inks would remain fade resistant in a worst case indoor scenario. achieve meaningful results. Everett. Endpoint. you will gain confidence in how your product will ■ Avoid product failure perform in a variety of end-use applications.Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks— A New Path Forward—Part 3 by John Lind. Will the ink be used indoors or input data in the form of absolute values into a mathematical outdoors? equation to generate accurate lifetime predictions. That is. you must first define your testing Choose extreme service environments to establish bench- goals. Q-Panel Lab Products This article is the final installment of our three-part series on fade resistance of lithographic inks. In Part 2. 30 GATFWorld August 2004 . ■ Verify supplier claims about an ink’s performance A word of caution: Each end-use environment produces ■ Match the ink’s performance to its intended application a different rate of degradation.” real-world service conditions.g. packaging. and ozone. What constitutes product failure? (e. Since you cannot simulate every possible Test Program environment that your product may encounter. Therefore. you cannot simply 2. Once you have defined these criteria for your particular product. Director of Research. you should understand certain general assumptions Developing a Meaningful about testing. exposures. you need dictions are dangerous and unreliable. humidity. general applications. In Part 3. really want service life predictions. and Eric T. color change. (2) estab- lish a reasonable exposure benchmark for fade resistance testing of inks. service life pre- To get meaningful answers to these questions. What are the intended uses of your ink? environmental factors can work independently or in tandem (e. Research Lab Technician. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. By doing this. we conclude our definitive study by providing guidance and recommendations on how to establish an 4. we presented test results from laboratory xenon arc exposures were performed on an identical set of lithographic ink specimens to find out (1) how well the lab xenon exposures mimicked Florida and Arizona exposures in terms of actual degradation and relative rank order and Outdoor testing is very affordable and provides real world (2) how much faster the lab exposures were to the natural exposure data. Because of these factors. These 1. archival) with UV light. In Part 1. moisture.g. John Stack. Failure Mode. Service Environment. then you must test in the fading. If you 3. delamination) product’s actual service environment.

A xenon arc tester also provides fast test results by both outdoor under glass exposures and accelerated labora- accelerating critical environmental stresses. and temperature. The natural tests ate durability data. For example. You should always After doing multiple tests in a xenon arc tester to gener. while the accelerated tests can give methods. you now have the confidence to do Chamber to provide the best simulation of sunlight through accelerated testing to get even faster test results. there is a standardized test procedure for This spectrum is typically the most severe indoor lighting light stability testing of litho inks (ASTM D3424). Once you have (1) determined the performance of your 2. words. Outdoor Weathering. As shown in Part 1. These documents provide credibility Chamber. proven methods for accomplished by using a tester like the Q-Sun Xenon Test product evaluation.. Test in a Q-Sun Xenon Test product in benchmark locations. Standardized Test Procedures. Use standardized testing Accelerated lab testing for light stability is best procedures. such as ASTM or ISO. like Florida and Arizona. “Simulate then Accelerate. It is important After you have defined your testing goals and general to periodically reconfirm your lab tests with more natural assumptions about testing. you are ready to begin testing.q-panel. At this point. 4. A properly filtered xenon arc provides an excellent between vendors and suppliers. perform both natural and accelerated tests. like rank order. and Test Again. simulation of the sunlight through window glass spectrum. “A is better than B for a certain set of conditions”). Putting It All Together choose between suppliers or formulations. intensity. An ideal test program includes natural outdoor exposures in Florida or Arizona benchmark locations and accelerated lab testing in a Q-Sun Xenon Test Chamber. Evaluate. you can determine the agreement between Q-Panel Lab Products is a global provider of light stability the natural and lab results.” 3. to assess relative performance (e. In other window glass exposure. Test in Florida and Arizona testing will provide you with benchmark durability data. This 1. RH. Once correlation is established. It specifies condition. you fast answers. exposures.g. benchmark locations. Accelerated Lab Testing. This information allows you to August 2004 GATFWorld 31 . performance in the lab. you can evaluate the data using statistical provide real world data. yet real world environments. to test your The ideal test program includes: product in extreme. Test. and weatherability products and services. such as light tory xenon arc exposures for ink performance evaluation. and (2) confirmed your product failure modes. select internationally recognized Conclusions and Recommendations benchmark locations. For more info visit you can use accelerated data to begin assessing product