Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bingtao Zhao*
School of Energy and Power Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China
ABSTRACT
Ultrafine aerosol particles (UFAP, diameter < 100 nm) emitted from laser printers have been considered as toxic aerosol.
To address the response relationship between the operating parameters and real-time ultrafine emissions, three commercial
printers were used to experimentally investigate their emission characteristics under different operating parameters
including: the ready process, the number of pages printed, the page coverage and the print mode. The results showed that
ultrafine particle emissions varied with the printer model. No causal correlation existed between the ultrafine particle
number concentration and the PM2.5 mass concentration of a specific printer. Ultrafine particle emission characteristics
were highly associated with operating parameters other than printer/cartridge toner model. Not all of the tested printers
displayed ultrafine particle emissions in the ready process. Ultrafine particle emissions increased with increasing number
of printed pages and page coverage with a nonlinear relationship. Compared with continuous printing, intermittent printing
has a so-called “peak-shaving” or “peak-shift” effect. The results may help to provide a simple and effective way to
control and reduce ultrafine particle emissions from laser printers by means of improvement of operating conditions.
Keywords: Ultrafine particles; Laser printer; Operating parameter; Emission characteristics; Response relationship.
emission characteristics (Byeon and Kim, 2012). However, sampled and monitored from the opposite side of the
it actually may also be attributed to the difference in the chamber.
printer models. So far, rare reports have comprehensively In this work, three widely-used commercial laser printers
investigated the effects of operating conditions on transit made by different producers or, by same producer but varied
emission characteristics of ultrafine particles from laser model: Brother HL-2240 (coded as Printer A), HP LaserJet
printers. Understanding the response relationship between 1606dn (coded as Printer B) and HP LaserJet P2015dn
ultrafine particle emission characteristics and operating (coded as Printer C) were tested for ultrafine particle
parameters may contribute to a reduction of particle emissions emission characteristics under varying operating parameters,
from laser printers, and also provide an assessment on indoor as described in Table 1.
environmental impact and public health considerations. The real-time ultrafine particle number concentration was
The aim of this work is to present a detailed investigation monitored using a water-based condensation particle counter
of the effects of operating parameters including: ready process with 5 nm to > 3 µm particle size range and 0 to > 2 × 104
(RP), number of pages (NP), page coverage (PC) and print particle concentration (WCPC Model 3785, TSI Inc.). The
mode (PM) on particle emissions for different laser printers. ultrafine particle size distribution was measured using a
On this basis, the response relationship between ultrafine scanning mobility particle sizer with 2-1000 nm measurement
particle emissions and operating parameters are analyzed range (SMPS Model 3080, TSI Inc.). The PM2.5 mass
and discussed to reveal the effect mechanism. concentration was measured using a DustTrak with 0.001–
100 mg m–3 measurement range (Model 8520 TSI Inc.) over
EXPERIMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS the test period. In addition, a temperature/humidity meter was
used to measure the temperature/humidity in the chamber.
Experimental Setup
A laboratory-scale experimental system used in this Experimental Design
study is illustrated in Fig. 1. It consisted of a commercial All measurements were performed in the following phases:
printer placed at the central bottom of a chamber, an (1) Cleaning process: background particle concentration was
aeration/exhausting system, and a monitoring system. The monitored until the ultrafine particle concentration was very
chamber with a volume of 0.53 m3 was used to test the low with less than 200 # cm–3 in the chamber, and then
particle emission characteristics. The air cleaned by a high stable for 5 minutes. (2) Ready process (optional): ultrafine
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was aerated into the particle concentration measurements were taken immediately
top of the chamber with a diffuser and exhausted from the after power initiation until ready status was reached. (3)
side of the chamber. Particle emission characteristics were Printing process: the measurement was taken during the
Vacuum pump
HEPA filter
Printer
Mass flowmeter
Vacuum pump SMPS WCPC
printing job from beginning to end. (4) Decay process: the tmax
measurement was taken after the print job had finished. The Savg Sdt / t max t0 .
printing and decay processes lasted for 30 minutes in total. t0
The experiment was carried out at 25 ± 1°C temperature, Also, to enhance comprehensive and global comparability,
40 ± 10% relative humidity and 1 h–1 air exchange rate we used the area under concentration curve (AUC) based
(Ciuzas et al., 2016). The specific design of the experiment on the experimental data as an evaluation parameter, as
is shown in Table 2. proposed by Schripp et al. (2008):
Evaluation Parameters t
Since the aerated air was clean (with very low particle AUCt C t dt (3)
t0
concentration), the printer in the chamber was assumed as
the only source of particles during the experiment. According
to the law of conservation of mass, the particle concentration t was set as 30 minutes (from printing start) and the
transport in the chamber can be modeled using the numerical integration method was used to obtain the
following governing equation (Ferro et al., 2004; Wallace approximate solution to Eq. (3) in the present work.
et al., 2004; He et al., 2007; Schripp et al., 2008): We finally selected the following key parameters to
evaluate the emission and exposure performances. The peak
dC⁄dt = S⁄V – kC (1) concentration Cmax and the peak time tmax (from printing
start) parameters were used to evaluate the ultrafine particle
where C is the particle concentration, t is time, S is the peak characteristics for the printing process. The ultrafine
particle emission rate of printer, V is the volume of the particle emission rate Savg was used to evaluate the average
chamber, and k is the particle loss coefficient. source emission intensity and, the loss coefficient k was
Assuming S and k are constant and independent of C used to evaluate ultrafine particle decay characteristics
and t, He et al. (2007) gave a time-average-based after cessation of source emissions for the decay process,
approximate solution to Eq. (1) for evaluation of S in the respectively. The area under time-average concentration curve
printing process. However, Eq. (1) actually has the analytic AUC30 (t = 30 min) was used to evaluate the contribution
solution. Considering the initial conditions t = t0, C = C0 of exposure of overall ultrafine particle emissions. Note
for printing process, and t = tmax, C = Cmax as well as S = 0 Eqs. (1)–(3) can be used for calculation of both number
for decay process, we use the method of separation of and mass particle concentrations.
variables to obtain the analytic solution as follow:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ln(S⁄V – kCt) – ln(S⁄V – kC0) = –k(t – t0) for printing
process (2a) Ultrafine Particle Emission Characteristics Varied with
Laser Printers
lnCt – lnCmax = –k(t – tmax) for decay process (2b) Ultrafine Particle Concentration
Fig. 2 and Table 3 illustrate the ultrafine particle number
The particle emission rate S and particle loss coefficient emission characteristics and evaluation parameters for
k can also be calculated by linear regression based Eq. (2a) three different printers, respectively. It was found that in a
and Eq. (2b), respectively. It should be noted that Eq. (2) short period following the onset of printing, ultrafine
can be only applied in the situations where the source particle emissions presented a climbing trend that increased
maintains a constant emission rate. According to Wensing as the printing proceeded. For the three printers, ultrafine
et al. (2008) and Schripp et al. (2008), the emission rate particle concentrations peaked near the end of the print job
characteristic from laser printers highly depended on the but varied greatly in peak concentration with differences
printer model and the toner cartridge where some presented a ranging in magnitude between 104–106. The average particle
constant emission feature but the others had an initial-burst emission rate also varied and was found to be in the range
feature. Therefore, we used the average particle emission of 103–105 for three different printers. Moreover, the peak
rate as the characterizing parameter which is defined as time was found to be highly associated with the printing
PM2.5 (mg/m3)
1500000 0.002
1000000
0.001
500000
0 0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(a) Printer A
Ultrafine particle number concentration (#/cm3)
20000 0.035
I II III UFPNC PM2.5
18000 I-Cleaning process
II-Printing process 0.030
16000 III-Decay process
14000 0.025
PM2.5 (mg/m3)
12000
0.020
10000
0.015
8000
6000 0.010
4000
0.005
2000
0 0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(b) Printer B
300000 0.020
I II III NPNC PM2.5
Particle number concentration (#/cm3)
I-Cleaning process
250000 II-Printing process
III-Decay process
0.015
200000
PM2.5 (mg/m3)
150000 0.010
100000
0.005
50000
0 0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(c) Printer C
Fig. 2. Real-time ultrafine particle number and PM2.5 mass concentrations for different printers.
Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017 2143
Table 3. Emission characteristics for ultrafine particle emission from different printers.
tmax (min) Cmaxa k (1 min–1) Savgb AUC30c
Ultrafine particle number (measured by CPC)
Printer A 2.38 2.44 × 106 0.139 6.68 × 105 1.63 × 107
Printer B 2.56 1.64 × 104 0.029 4.34 × 103 3.40 × 105
Printer C 4.57 2.60 × 105 0.046 3.82 × 104 4.21 × 106
PM2.5 mass (measured by DustTrak)
Printer A 2.00 0.003 / / 0.076
Printer B 4.00 0.028 0.038 5.96 × 10–3 0.528
Printer C 5.00 0.015 0.039 1.51 × 10–3 0.267
a
Unit: # cm–3 for number and mg m–3 for mass.
b
Unit: # min–1 for number and mg min–1 for mass.
c
Unit: # cm–3 min–1 for number and mg m–3 min–1 for mass.
speed. Upon completion of the print job, the particle the ultrafine particle loss coefficient. Particularly, a great
concentrations began to decay. Approximately exponentially difference in particle number concentration increases the
decaying curves were observed during the decay process. significance of the coagulation effect on the particle loss
The printers with higher ultrafine particle concentration coefficient since a high probability of collisions results in
emissions presented a higher loss rate than those with the enhancement of particle coagulation.
lower ultrafine particle concentrations. The ultrafine particle The PM2.5 mass emission characteristics for three different
concentrations of printers A, B, and C decreased to about printers are also illustrated in Fig. 2 and Table 3. It is
1/25, 1/2 and 2/5 of their peak concentrations by the end of interesting that Printer B displayed the highest mass peak
decay process, respectively. Finally, the exposure parameter concentration Cmax and mass exposure parameter AUC30
AUC30 varied between printers with magnitudes ranging while Printer A demonstrated relatively low values. Printer
between 105–107. C presented a moderate performance for both factors.
Usually, when a print job command is received a printer The results suggest that there is not a causal association
successively starts the main motor, heat-fixing unit, laser between number and mass particle emissions from laser
scanner motor, transfer roller, and primary charging bias printers. PM2.5 emissions including the peak time are closely
according to the working principle. Once the scanner related to the particle size, particle density and particle
motor maintains a constant speed of rotation and reaches a interaction in addition to particle numbers. In this case,
preset temperature, the paper is delivered. In this process, Printer A may have finer particle size and density while
the toner powder is heated continuously and fused on the Printer B may have the opposite. This phenomenon shows
paper, resulting in large amounts of particles emitted. This that particle emission from laser printers is a complex process
process explains the sharp increase in particle number that depends essentially on the fusing process as well as
concentration after the start of the print job. When the print the size and chemical composition of the toner particles.
job finished, particle number concentration presented a Moreover, Printers B and C did not show significant
decaying trend because of the ultrafine particle loss caused differences in the particle mass loss coefficient, indicating
by air exchange, particle deposition (by turbulent diffusion that the decrease of particle numbers caused by coagulation
or thermophoresis), and particle coagulation (He et al., does not give rise to a significant decrease of particle mass
2007; Byeon and Kim, 2012). The overall trends of particle as expected.
number concentration are in agreement with previous Usually, the printer-emitted ultrafine particle number
reports (He et al., 2007; Wensing et al., 2008; Byeon and concentration is more sensitive to the particle size change
Kim, 2012). However, different performances in particle and particle toxicity than PM2.5, and is more refined to
emissions were observed especially with respect to the characterize the behavior of particles in the nano-scale
Cmax and AUC30 values which indicate a differing property level. Therefore, the work further focused on the investigation
corresponding to the particle source, although the ultrafine of the ultrafine particle number concentration including
particle concentration increased as the print job proceeded particle size distribution and effects of operating parameters.
in all cases. Printer A seemed to display an initial-burst
particle source while Printer B and C more closely resembled Ultrafine Particle Size Distribution
a quasi-constant particle source. This can be attributed to Fig. 3 shows the size distribution of the particles emitted
the differences in the printer models (heating time and from three different printers. A typical normal size
preset temperature), toner models (toner powder size and distribution can be observed during the printing and decay
physicochemical properties), and even printing speeds. processes for each printer tested. The peak value of each
Moreover, particle loss coefficients vary between different particle size range distribution presented an attenuating
printers. This indicates that under the same air exchange rate, trend after the printing process finished. For the printers with
the deposition rate, influenced by particle physicochemical high concentrations of ultrafine particle emissions (Printers A
properties, and the coagulation rate, influenced by ultrafine and C), as the ultrafine particle concentration decreased,
particle concentration, may be primary factors related to the median particle diameter increased and approached a
2144 Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017
Time (min)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
40
10000
0 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Particle diameter (nm)
(a) Printer A
Time (min)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Ultrafine particle number concentration (#/cm3)
800 120
5.00-7.25 min
7.25-9.50 min
700 9.50-11.75 min
11.75-14.00 min 110
0 60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Particle diameter (nm)
(b) Printer B
Time (min)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Ultrafine particle number concentration (#/cm3)
20000 120
5.00-7.25 min
7.25-9.50 min
9.50-11.75 min
11.75-14.00 min 110
Median particle diameter (nm)
4000
70
0 60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Particle diameter (nm)
(c) Printer C
Fig. 3. Ultrafine particle size distributions for different printers.
Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017 2145
relatively constant value over time (about 55 nm from 18 nm standby, initialization, print, and last initialization actions
for Printer A and 85 nm from 57 nm for Printer C). The are carried out. For commonly used printers, upon the power
printer with lower ultrafine particle concentrations (Printer being switched on, there are series of specific process in
B) displayed a median particle diameter in the range of70– this action including: initializing the CPU, checking the paper
82 nm that slightly declined in the decay process but tray, starting heat fixing (to a temperature higher than
stabilized between 75–80 nm. 100°C), starting the main motor and scanner motor, etc. A
Particle coagulation, when finer particles join to become very important step relating to ultrafine particle emissions
larger particles, occurs when particles with high number is the heat fixing process. This process may cause ultrafine
concentrations (Printer A and C) are emitted to space. Reports particle emissions even in the absence of a print job to
by Wensing et al. (2008) and Byeon and Kim (2012) perform. This is consistent with the results reported by
considered that this phenomenon occurred as a result of the Wensing et al. (2008). However, not all printers display
printing speed only. However, physical properties of particles, this characteristic. In this work, only Printer A displayed
interactions between particles and particles, and interactions high particle emissions during the ready process while
between particles and vapors released from paper during almost no particle emissions were observed from Printers
the fusing process may also actually be the most important B and C. Although they have similar self-checking items
factors. The coagulation effect may dominate for smaller and (Toner, drum, paper or jam error check, 15 s for Print A,
lighter particles while for larger and heavier particles, the 10 s for Print B and 20 s for Print C), this difference may
deposition effect may become more responsible for particle be attributed to the use of transient temperature arising
size distribution. This phenomenon might explain the slight technology. Therefore, for some printers, beginning the
decrease in median particle diameter observed for Printer B. cold start process without a print job present may result in
additional ultrafine particles released. In that case, it is
Influence of Ready Process important to prevent frequent cold starts because it helps to
The effect of ready process (usually refers to the standby reduce particle emissions during this process.
step) on particle emission for three printers is illustrated in
Fig. 4 and Table 4. Significant ultrafine particle emissions Influence of Number of Pages
were observed for Printer A while almost no ultrafine particle Fig. 5 and Table 4 present the effect of number of pages
emissions were found for both Printers B and C during printed on ultrafine particle emissions for three printers.
their ready process. Compared with the particle emissions For print jobs with 20, 50 and 100 sheets of paper, peak
in the printing process as shown in Fig. 2, the peak ultrafine particle concentrations/peak time and AUC30
concentration/time, loss coefficient and AUC30 in the ready values for all printers increased as the number of pages
process had lower values. For instance, Printer A’s peak increased but no significant linear correlation was observed.
concentration and AUC30 values were about 100 times less Specifically, the increments of the peak concentration and
than those observed in the printing process. AUC30 values decreased with increasing number of pages
Ultrafine particle emissions during the ready process are printed. Nevertheless, for the same printer, particle loss
associated with the principles and actions of the printer. coefficients remained almost constant despite variations in
The principles for a laser printer can usually be described the number of pages to print.
as the charge, exposure, development, transfer, fusing, and Usually, the particle emissions from a laser printer are
cleaning-erase processes. Within the whole process, the considered to be proportional to the number of pages printed.
35000
Printer A
I II III Printer B
Nanoparticle concentration (#/cm3)
30000
Printer C
I-Cleaning process
25000 II-Ready process
III-Decay process
20000
15000
10000
5000
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
Fig. 4. Effect of ready process on real-time particle emissions.
2146 Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017
(min) (105 # cm–3) (106 # cm–3 min–1) However, this ideal situation does not apply in this study
due to the complexity of the ultrafine particle emission
process. In the report by Schripp’s et al. (2008), an almost
linear correlation between Cmax or AUC45 (t = 45 min) and
the number of pages printed was found for some but not all
AUC30
Intermittent print mode 2: 17 pages printing + 1 min interval + 17 pages printing + 1 min interval + 17 pages printing: I = peak 1; II = peak 2; III = peak 3.
2.77
4.21
5.47
4.21
5.11
4.21
3.30
3.74
NA
such significant linear correlation was observed for all of
Printer C
1.95 III
1.82 II for Printer A. This result suggests that the mechanism of
1.78 II
1.45 I
1.39 I
1.63
2.60
3.08
2.60
2.86
2.60
Cmax
NA
4.57
2.38
5.35
1.81
4.90
7.62
tmax
also increased.
1.64
3.40
5.04
3.40
3.93
3.40
3.17
3.13
NA
Printer B
Intermittent print mode1: 25 pages printing + 1 min interval + 25 pages printing: I = peak 1; II = peak 2.
2.56 1.64
2.56 1.64
1.23 0.65
2.93 1.20
4.70 2.51
4.01 2.05
Cmax
NA
NA
0
2.78
1.13
1.63
2.12
1.63
2.15
1.63
1.50
1.58
Printer A
3.15 4.56
2.38 2.44
2.38 2.44
2.87 3.28
2.38 2.44
Intermittent 1b 2.16I 1.57
4.65II 1.75
2.21 1.24
3.81 1.71
6.20III 1.56
2.63 2.77
Cmax
100 pages
50 pagesa
c
Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017 2147
3500000
Number of pages=25 sheets
Number of pages=50 sheets
3000000 Number of pages=100 sheets
I II III
2000000
II III
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(a) Printer A
30000
Number of pages=25 sheets
I II III Number of pages=50 sheets
25000 Number of pages=100 sheets
Particle concentration (#/cm3)
I-Cleaning process
II-Printing process
20000 III-Decay process
II III
15000
10000
II III
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(b) Printer B
350000
Number of pages=25 sheets
I II III Number of pages=50 sheets
300000 Number of pages=100 sheets
Particle concentration (#/cm3)
200000
II III
150000
100000
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(c) Printer C
Fig. 5. Effect of number of pages on real-time ultrafine particle emissions.
2148 Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017
5000000
I II III Page coverage=5%
4500000 Page coverage=20%
Page coverage=40%
2500000 II III
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(a) Printer A
30000
Page coverage=5%
Page coverage=20%
25000 I-Cleaning process
Particle concentration (#/cm3)
II-Printing process
I II III III-Decay process
20000
II III
15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(b) Printer B
350000
Page coverage=5%
Page coverage=20%
300000 I II III I-Cleaning process
Particle concentration (#/cm )
3
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(c) Printer C
Fig. 6. Effect of page coverage on real-time ultrafine particle emissions.
Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017 2149
3500000
Print mode=Continuous
Print mode=Intermittent 1
3000000
Print mode=Intermittent 2
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(a) Printer A
25000
Print mode=Continuous
Print mode=Intermittent 1
Print mode=Intermittent 2
Particle concentration (#/cm3)
20000
I-Cleaning process
II/Ascending trends-Printing process
I II III III/Descending trends-Decay process
15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(b) Printer B
350000
Print mode=Continuous
Print mode=Intermittent 1
300000
Print mode=Intermittent 2
Particle concentration (#/cm3)
150000
100000
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
(c) Printer C
Fig. 7. Effect of print mode on real-time ultrafine particle emissions.
2150 Zhao, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 2139–2151, 2017