Received: 3 October 2019 | Revised: 18 December 2019 | Accepted: 9 January 2020

DOI: 10.1111/ina.12646

REVIEW ARTICLE

Review of the characteristics and possible health effects of

particles emitted from laser printing devices

Jianwei Gu1 | Stefan Karrasch2 | Tunga Salthammer1

1
Department of Material Analysis and Indoor
Chemistry, Fraunhofer WKI, Braunschweig, Abstract
Germany Many studies have shown that the use of laser printing devices (LPDs) contributes
2
Institute and Outpatient Clinic for
to the release of particles into the indoor environment. However, after more than
Occupational, Social and Environmental
Medicine, Inner City Clinic, University two decades of research, the physicochemical properties of LPD-emitted particles
Hospital of Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-
and the possible health effects from exposure to particles are still heavily debated.
Universität, Munich, Germany
We therefore carried out a critical review of the published studies around emissions
Correspondence
and health effects of LPD-emitted particles, aiming at elucidating the nature of these
Tunga Salthammer, Department of Material
Analysis and Indoor Chemistry, Fraunhofer particles and their potential health risks. Realizing the varying methodologies of the
WKI, Braunschweig 38108, Germany.
studies, a classification of the reviewed studies is adopted, resulting in three cat-
Email: tunga.salthammer@wki.fraunhofer.de
egories of emission studies (chamber experiment, office/room measurement, and
Funding information
photocopy shop measurement), and three types of health studies (in vitro/animal
Fraunhofer WKI, 38108 Braunschweig
studies, human studies in the real world, and human studies in controlled settings).
The strengths and limitations of each type of study are discussed in-depth, which in
turn helps to understand the cause of divergent results. Overall, LPD-emitted par-
ticles are mainly condensed or secondary-formed semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), while solid toner particles account for a very small fraction. The health risk
from exposure to LPD-emitted particles is small compared with the health risk from
exposure to ambient particles.

KEYWORDS

emission, exposure, indoor air quality, laser printer, particulate matter, risk

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N health.6 Indeed, laser printing devices (LPDs) are an ubiquitous

Health impairments at workplaces have been recognized for many
years1 and, as a result of their enormous social and economic signifi-
cance, have been intensely investigated. 2-4 Complaints concerning
poor air quality in offices have increased over the years,5 and par-
ticularly, emissions from office equipment are suspected to affect
equipment in modern society used in offices, photocopy centers,
and at home.
Early studies examining emissions of such equipment identified
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
particulate matter.7,8 Since then, a number of studies have investi-
gated the emissions, exposure scenarios, and health effects of LPDs.

The peer review history for this article is available at https​://publo​ns.com/publo​n/10.1111/ina.12646​

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2020 The Authors. Indoor Air published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

396 | 
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ina Indoor Air. 2020;30:396–421.
GU et al.
However, particulate LPD emissions are still subject to controver-
sial debates, ranging from the particle emission mechanism, phys-
iochemical property, to the health risk.
With respect to particle emission and characterization, various
studies in environmental chambers have been conducted, mostly
concluding that LPDs can emit ultrafine particles (UFPs) in variable
amounts. These UFPs have been described to be predominately
semi-volatile and mainly formed from nucleation and condensa-
tion of vaporized semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs).9-13
However, more recently it has been argued that the release of en-
gineered nanoparticles in the toner powders mainly contributed to
the UFPs.14,15 This emission component would be markedly different
from the re-condensing SVOCs mentioned before and, if present in
relevant amounts, has to be taken into account in pathophysiologi-
cal considerations regarding possible health effects of LPD-emitted
particles.
Studies focusing on particle emissions from LPDs mainly rely
on chamber experiments and field measurements as the two major
methodological approaches. Each method has its strengths and lim-
itations. Chamber experiments are usually conducted in a well-con-
trolled environment minimizing background particle concentrations;
however, chamber size, material, air exchange rate, and further char-
acteristics differ from the real environment. On the other hand, field
measurements, for example, in offices or photocopy centers, cover
real-world particle concentrations, but face the challenge that the
“field” itself is influenced not only by LPDs, but potentially many
other indoor sources10,16 and infiltration of outdoor particles.17-19
The respective limitations have to be considered in the interpreta-
tion of results from these studies.
A public debate has been taking place for years regarding the
health assessment of nanoparticles emitted from office equip-
ment, in particular LPDs, into the room air. This primarily concerns
the questions as to what these particles consist of and whether
exposure can be expected to endanger human health. Initially, it
has been claimed that the emitted particles are constituents of
the toner. As toners often contain iron oxides, possible “iron har-
poons” have been suspected to penetrate through alveoli and cell
walls following inhalation on a popular science level. However,
iron oxides and other transition metals are also common com-
ponents of atmospheric aerosols. 20 Regarding the actual health
effects of LPD-emitted particles, a variety of findings have been
reported during recent years, comprising case reports, risk as-
sessments, toxicological, epidemiological, and human exposure
studies, which need to be reviewed together with particle char-
acterization studies.
Since the overall results are heterogeneous and conclusions
of different approaches are often divergent, the aims of this re-
view are to answer the following questions: (a) What is the na-
ture of particles emitted from LPDs, and at what levels are people
exposed in consumer as well as occupational settings? (b) What
are the possible health risks from an exposure to LPD-emitted
particles?
| 397
Practical Implications
• Despite a number of studies on the emission and health
effects of laser printer-emitted particles, the questions
of the nature and potential risk of particles are still not
clear and are being heavily debated.
• We critically reviewed relevant studies by categorizing
them by their methodologies and discussed indepth
their respective strengths and limitations.
• Our findings help to elucidate the physical properties of
these particles and what the health risk is due to printer
particle exposure in different scenarios.
2 | M E TH O DS
Two literature searches were carried out separately, one for studies
on the emission and characterization of LPD-emitted particles, and
one for studies on their potential health risks.
2.1 | Studies on particle emission and
characterization
For studies on the particle emission and characterization, the
search was carried out in Web of Science and Google Scholar using
the keywords on (a) printers: “laser printer,” “laser printing,” “hard-
copy,” “photocopy,” “photocopier”; (b) particles: “particle,” “aerosol,”
“particulate matter,” “UFP”; and (c) emission/exposure: “emission,”
“exposure,” and “dose.” A combination of two keywords was used
in the search, with “printer,” or its synonyms were always included,
for example, “laser printer + particle,” “laser printing + emission,”
or “hardcopy + exposure.” The time span of the literature was
from 2000 until 2019. A total of 531 publications were obtained,
which were screened for duplicates and suitable topics. The stud-
ies should fall into the scope of particle emission during the opera-
tion of laser printers or multifunctional copy devices, which include
chamber studies, measurements in indoor environment, exposure
assessment, and modeling studies. Literature was excluded for (a)
studies related to 3D printing or inkjet printing; or (b) studies with-
out measurement or modeling (eg, only opinions); or (c) studies on
toner composition. In total, 56 papers were gathered and evaluated.
2.2 | Studies on health risks
The literature search for the studies on the health risks utilized a
similar approach. The search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus,
and Web of Science. While the keywords on (a) printers and (b) par-
ticles remained the same as in Section 2.1, health-related keywords
were used including “human,” “rodents,” “health,” “in vitro,” “in vivo,”
398 | GU et al.
“hazard,” “exposure,” “risk,” “epidemiology,” “toxicity,” and “toxico-
logical.” A total of 597 publications were found. They were screened
to remove any irrelevant studies. Studies purely on the health ef-
fects of pristine toner powder or particles were not included. After
screening, 23 studies on health effects were obtained. Combined
21
with the references from a previous review by Pirela et al,
of 31 studies were evaluated.
3 | PA RTI C LE E M I S S I O N A N D
C H A R AC TE R IZ ATI O N
Particles are ubiquitous in the outdoor and indoor air. There are vari-
ous indoor sources contributing to the particles in the indoor envi-
ronment.10,16 In addition, penetration from outdoor is an important
22,23
source of indoor particles. As a result, when identifying the laser
printer particles, it is crucial to account for the particles in the back-
ground and of other sources. Figure 1 shows the various sources of
particles and gaseous pollutants in an office or a photocopy center.
For the printing device itself, one needs to distinguish between dif-
ferent cases. In the normal operation mode, volatile particles will
be emitted during the printing process. Maintenance, especially the
cleaning of printers, may lead to the release of dust. Finally, a mal-
function may cause the release of coarse particles, if jammed paper
covered with unfixed toner power is removed from the device by
unexperienced users.
The emission of particles from LPDs has been extensively
studied. Most of the studies fall into three categories: chamber
experiment, office/room measurement, and measurement in occu-
pational settings (such as photocopy shop or center). The aims and
experimental settings of these studies differ from one to another.
The chamber experiments were typically conducted in a well-con-
trolled environment (eg, predefined climate parameters and mini-
mized particle background concentrations), therefore, minimizing
the influence of other sources. It is a powerful tool for characteriz-
ing particles from LPDs. The measurements at home or office with
printers represent the exposure to consumer use scenarios, and
the measurements in photocopy centers/shops represent the oc-
cupational exposure scenario for the photocopy center employees.
However, the home, office, or photocopy center environment could
be diverse. Many parameters influence the particle concentrations,
which include climate parameters, room size, and air exchange rate.
Moreover, indoor particles are a mixture of particles from various
indoor sources and penetration of outdoor particles. These add
complexity and difficulty when identifying the particles from laser
printing from field measurements.
3.1 | Laser printer components and materials
The potential sources of particles around LPDs include toner, paper,
and printer components (such as lubricants, additives in the printer
structure, and housing). Modern toners consist of synthesized
resins, magnetizable metal oxides (usually iron oxide), pigments, and
a variety of additives. Bello et al24 analyzed the constituents of two
toners and obtained the following results: 70%-74% organic carbon
(OC), 5%-6% elemental carbon (EC), 2%-6% iron, and 13%-15% other
elements (silicon (Si), sulfur (S), titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn)) (see
a total Table 1). The typical particle sizes of flowable toner powders lie be-
tween 2 µm and 30 µm. In a laser printer chassis, in the technical
components and in the commonly used papers, there are a variety
of chemical compounds. Lubricants (usually silicon oils) are used in
a printer's moving parts, and the plastic parts often contain organic
flame retardants. Besides the fiber content, paper contains bond-
ing agents and resins, impregnation agents (paraffin, waxes), filler
materials (calcium carbonate, barium sulfate, titanium dioxide, kao-
lin, talcum, etc), and diverse additives. Papers may also have special
coatings to achieve particular printing effects. 25
3.2 | Results from chamber experiments
3.2.1 | Particle size distribution
The characteristics of particles released from LPDs can be well ana-
lyzed in a test chamber. Table 2 summarizes the chamber studies
on particle emission from LPDs. The typical size distribution over a
printing time of 10 minutes is shown as a contour plot in Figure 2.
During the printing phase, the particle spectrum changes little: The
range measured with a Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS) lies be-
tween 30 and 70 nm. Once the printing phase is over, there is a clear
shift toward larger particles. This is due to the typical condensation
processes as are known from atmospheric aerosols. 26 The size dis-
tribution of particles from LPDs has since been independently ana-
lyzed by many groups. They all came to the conclusion that particles
with a diameter < 200 nm are clearly dominant.9,12-14,27-32
Early chamber studies found an increase of PM10 (particulate
matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 µm), and the poor transfer
efficiency between the toner drum and paper surface may have led
to the PM10 increase.33 He et al34 found very low PM2.5 (particulate
matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 µm) emissions from one
laser printer, and no emissions for two other printers. Salthammer et
al10 found no evidence of emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 from LPDs.
Pirela et al14 came to different results. With the aid of a cascade im-
pactor, increases in concentration of PM2.5 and PM2.5-10 (particulate
matter with aerodynamic diameter between 2.5 and 10 µm) were
gravimetrically ascertained in a 0.52-m3 chamber during a 60-min-
utes laser printing period. However, activities such as changing of
toner cartridges and clearing paper jams during printing may have
contributed to the elevated PM2.5 and PM2.5-10 concentrations.14
3.2.2 | Particle emission rates
In a chamber experiment, the particle number concentration (PNC) is
continuously monitored. It is influenced by the particle emission rate
GU et al.
F I G U R E 1 Schematic of the multiple
sources of particles and gaseous
pollutants in indoor environment with
LPDs
Operation
Printing device
(normal operation)
Printing device
(maintenance)
Printing device
(malfunction)
and total particle decay rate in the chamber. Using a mathematical
separation method called deconvolution, the measured PNC can be
expressed as a product of emission rate function (A) and the decay
function of the chamber (B), as shown in Equation (1) 35:
t Morawska et al conclude that there has been a shift, with more
A ∗ B = ∫ A(x)B(t − x)dx (1)
0 printers being low emitters and fewer high emitters. To distinguish
By solving Equation (1), the emission rate by time (SER(t)) is ob-
tained as a function of PNC in the chamber air (c(t) and c(t-Δt)), the
total particle decay constant k, and the loading factor L.
c(t) − c(t − Δt)e−kΔt
SER(t) = (2)
LΔte−kΔt
The emission rates reported from the literature differ widely (see
Table 2). The study by Scungio et al36 demonstrated emission rates
for 110 printers from seven manufacturers ranging from 108 to 1012
particles/min. The emission rates can be compared using a standard-
ized test protocol in a 10-minute print run as per DE-UZ-205.37 The
recommended test value as determined according to the DE-UZ 205
is 3.5 × 1011 particles per 10 minutes of printing.
38
A number of factors influence the particle emissions. He et al
measured emissions from 30 printers in the chamber and found
that the particle emission rates positively correlated (in the form of
a power law) with the average temperature of the fuser. A similar
relationship between particle emission rate and fuser temperature
was found by Wensing et al,39 Park and Park,40 and Wang et al.41
41
Toner coverage influences the particle emission rates. Color print-
ing with 20% coverage was found to cause higher particle emis-
sion rates than monochrome printing at 5% coverage on the same
29
printer. However, another study found that UFP concentrations
were increased when printing with 0% toner coverage, and the level
was comparable to printing with 5% toner coverage.42 The particle
emissions with 0% toner coverage, as reported in several studies,
can be explained by evaporation of deposited SVOCs from previ-
ous printing jobs.41 Higher printing speed was associated with lower
PNCs but increased particle diameter.43
| 399
Indoor air Gas/particle conversion
Gas/surface reactions
Gaseous pollutants
Ambient air
Infiltration
Exfiltration
Particles
Resuspension
Deposition
Other sources
Dust on surfaces
Morawska et al44 measured particle emissions from 297 printers
in offices and a chamber, and found that 56.6%, 34.7%, 4.7%, and
4.0% were non-emitters, low emitters, medium emitters, and high
emitters, respectively, in terms of particle emission. Ten years earlier
(2007), the respective percentages were 60%, 10%, 3%, and 27%.34
between printer particle emission rates, He et al34 used the ratio of
the particle concentration in an office immediately after the printer
printed one page, compared to the background office concentration.
The investigated printers were then catalogued into non-emitters
(ratio ≤ 1), low emitters (ratio > 1 and ≤5), medium emitters (ratio > 5
and ≤10), and high emitters (ratio > 10).
3.2.3 | Particle chemical composition
The main chemical components of laser printer-emitted particles
include hydrocarbons, esters, and a small amount of inorganic ele-
ments.10-13,15 For obtaining specific information on organic com-
pounds, Schripp and Wensing11 conducted gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis of LPD particles and found alkanes
and siloxanes to be the main organic components. Figure 3 shows the
result of a GC/MS analysis of printer-emitted particles. The alkanes’
chain lengths were between C21 and C45, and homologous rows
normally had chain lengths between C31 and C40. Alkanes between
C30 and C40 are often used as waxes and hydrophobing agents.
The vapor pressures calculated with SPARC range from 10−8 Pa to
10−10 Pa (298 K). Other non-volatile organic compounds were also
identified such as bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, bis(2-ethylhexyl) long-
chain carboxyl acid esters, and flame retardants10 (see Table 1).
In order to identify inorganic components, particles were col-
lected on transmission electron microscope (TEM) grids and an-
alyzed using energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy
(EDS). The following elements were found regardless of the printer
and paper used: aluminum (Al), chlorine (Cl), calcium (Ca), cobalt
(Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), potassium (K), magne-
sium (Mg), manganese (Mn), sodium (Na), nickel (Ni), phosphorus (P),
400 | GU et al.

TA B L E 1 Chemical composition of particles from laser printing, toner powder, and the paper

Material Attributed sources Chemical composition References

Toner powder particles Toner 1 OC (74.1%), EC (5.9%) Bello et al (2013)24

Airborne particles
Airborne particles
Toner powder particles
Airborne particles
Airborne particles
Toner powder particles
Airborne particles
Elements (ICP-MS): Fe (6.0%), Ti (1.0%), Si and other (13.0%)
Organic (GC/MS): alkanes (C23-C40)
Toner 2 OC (70.4%), EC (5.6%) Bello et al (2013)24
Elements (ICP-MS): Fe (2.4%), S (0.2%), Ti (0.4%), Mn (0.8%),
Si and other (13.2%)
Organic (GC/MS): alkanes (C23-C40)
Printer chassis Elements (XRF): Br, Sb Barthel et al (2011)9
Fuser unit housing Elements (XRF): Br, P, Sb Barthel et al (2011)9
Paper Elements (XRF): Ca, Cl, Ti Barthel et al (2011)9
Toner Elements (XRF): Ca, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Si, Sn, Ti, V, Zn Barthel et al (2011)9
Organic (GC/MS): alkanes (C21-C45), bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, Salthammer et al (2012);
bis(2-ethylhexyl) decanedioate, long-chain carboxylic acid esters, Schripp and Wensing
flame retardants (2009)10,11
Organic (GC/MS): siloxanes (cyclic and open chain)
Elements (XRF): Al, Cl, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, S,
Si, Ti, Zn
Volatile fraction: 98%-99%; solid fraction: 1%-2%
Toner Elements (SEM/EDS): Wang et al (2011)13
C, Fe, O (main components); Ti, Sr (in trace amount)
Elements (TEM): evaporate rapidly by electron beam, likely Wang et al (2011)13
organic species
Elements (TEM/EDS): C & O (>70%), Ti, Fe, Sn and Si Sung et al (2017)12
11 Toners OC (42%-89%), EC (0%-12%) Pirela et al (2015)15
Elements (ICP-MS): Fe, Si, S, Ca, Zn, Sr, Al etc (Fe: up to 33%; other
metals mainly < 0.5% by mass).
PM2.5 OC (60%-65%), metals (1%-1.7%), others (33%-39%) Pirela et al (2015)15

EDS: energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; GC/MS: gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; ICP-MS: inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry; SEM: scanning electron microscopy; TEM: transmission electron microscopy; XRF: X-ray fluorescence.

sulfur (S), silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), and zinc (Zn).10,28 However, these
inorganic constituents only totaled to 1%-2% of the overall particle
9
composition. Barthel et al conducted a detailed analysis of particle
size-segregated inorganic components from 10 different printers.
They collected the particles with a 13-stage cascade impactor on
polycarbonate surfaces and analyzed them using EDS. By way of ad-
ditional analyses of toner materials, papers, and fuser housing units,
a variety of the detected elements could be attributed to potential
sources (see Table 1). It is assumed that Ca (from CaCO3) and Cl are
primarily emitted from the paper. Fe, Cr, Ni, and Zn are components
of the toner, and bromine (Br) comes from the printer itself—prob-
ably as flame retardant agent components from the plastic chassis.
No specific sources were identified for Ti (probably from the white
pigment TiO2) and Si. The research of Barthel et al9 also found that
the share of solid particles is only between 0.2% and 1.9%.
In addition, studies found that printer particles showed differ-
ent behaviors as toner powder particles using TEM or gel perme-
ation chromatography (GPC) analysis. Wang et al13 collected LPD
particles on an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) sampler and analyzed
with TEM/EDS. They found airborne particles from LPDs evaporate
quickly under TEM analysis. This behavior is different from nano-
meter-sized toner particles (10 nm polymer), which are stable under
TEM. This implies that the airborne particles are re-condensed
semi-volatile organics, but not fugitive toner particles. Sung et al12
found carbon and oxygen being the main components (>70%) of the
emitted particles with TEM/EDS, with remaining contents includ-
ing oxides of Ti, Fe, Sn, and Si as inner coagulant. They observed
differences in the GPC peaks between toner particles and emitted
particles. It was inferred that emitted particles were formed from
(evaporated) gaseous pollutants, rather than pristine toner particles.
3.2.4 | Particle physical properties
The physical characteristics of the particles released from LPDs were
studied independently by several working groups and they reach
the similar conclusion that laser printer particles are largely volatile.
Morawska et al28 analyzed the hygroscopic behavior and the ther-
mal disintegration of the particles with the aid of a volatilization and
humidification tandem differential mobility analyzer (VH-TDMA).45
They found that the particles are hydrophobic and evaporate from
approximately 100°C. It can be concluded that the particles gener-
ally consist of semi-volatile organic components. Using Knudsen's
theory on the evaporation of particles in air and taking into account
TA B L E 2 A summary of the published studies on particle emissions from LPDs in chambers (AER, air exchange rate; CMD, count median diameter; PSD, particle size distribution)

References Study category Chamber, AER PSD Particle emission rates Results Note
GU et al.

3
Nies et al Chamber 9-m chamber; Range ca. 10-90 nm - Three color photocopiers and three color laser printers were Low air exchange rate
(2000)104 experiment (AER = 0.0025 h- (Printer 1); 90-300 nm tested; PNCs increased except for one device
1
) (Printer 3)
Lee et al Chamber 2.4-m3 chamber - - PM10 concentrations were between 41 and 65 µg/m3 for No UFP measured,
(2001)33 experiment laser printers and an all-in-one office machine no emission rates
calculated. Two laser
printers, two inkjet
printers, and one all-
in-one office machine
were tested
Rockstroh et Chamber Chamber - - A test method was developed for reliable and reproducible The aim of the study
al (2004)105 experiment determination of emission rates for dust, ozone, and VOCs is to develop a
from laser printers and photocopiers test method; UFP
measurement was not
included
Jann et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber - - Dust emission rates were determined (gravimetric method) Dust emission rate was
(2005)106 experiment (AER = 4-5 h-1); and were below the limit value of 4 mg/h not reported; no UFP
24-m3 chamber was measured
(AER = 1 h-1)
He et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber Mean size: 35-94 nm number: 0.04 - Measurements of laser printer emissions in office and
(2007)34 experiment and 120-m2 1.59 × 1011 particles/ chamber were conducted. Four types of printers were
and office office min; mass: non- identified concerning emissions: non-emitters, low
measurement detectable—0.29 µg/ emitters, medium emitters, and high emitters. Chamber
min studies found that particles were emitted immediately
after the printer started operating. Particles showed
monodisperse size distribution and were dominated by
UFPs (<100 nm)
Kagi et al Chamber 0.56-m3 chamber PSD mode: 50 nm - No particle was measured in the chamber experiment. In
(2007)27 experiment (AER = 1.1 h-1); (point 2 and 3) the room test, UFPs were measured at three points (point
and office 120-m3 room 1 above the printer, point 2 at the printer exhaust opening,
measurement (AER = 2.1 h-1) and point 3 150 cm away from the printer). Following
gradient was found for PNCs: point 1 > point 2 > point 3
Géhin et al Chamber 2.36-m3 chamber; PSD mode: 21 nm below detection limit - Four emission tests were conducted in total. Only in one
(2008)96 experiment (AER = 46.8 h-1) 2.30 × 1010 particles/s test, PNC was measured, and in three tests, PNCs were
below the detection limit
Schripp et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber - - The particle emission rates were determined using a
(2008)29 experiment (AER = 3 h-1) method of deconvolution. Size-dependent particle decay
coefficients were determined. The association of particle
emission behaviors with toner coverage and pages printed
was evaluated
|
401

(Continues)
TA B L E 2 (Continued)
402
|

References Study category Chamber, AER PSD Particle emission rates Results Note
3
Wensing et al Chamber 1-m chamber PSD mode 1: - Emission tests were conducted in chambers according
(2008)30 experiment (AER = 3 h-1); <10 nm; PSD mode to ECMA 328 protocol. Two types of particle emission
and office 72-m3 room 2:40-100 nm behaviors were identified, that is, “constant” and “initial
measurement (AER = 0.35 h-1) burst” types. The heating of fuser unit was an important
step in the generation of UFPs. Particle filters removed the
UFPs with efficiencies between 21% and 84%
Kim et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber 20-200 nm - Measurements were performed 1) when fuser system was
(2009)107 experiment (AER = 4.8 h-1) heated but the heating roller without development and 2)
with 0% and 5% toner coverage, respectively. Increased
PNCs were observed during the heating of fuser to 190°C,
and with 0% and 5% toner coverage. The sources of UFPs
were rubber of the heating roller, paper, and the toner
Morawska et Chamber Chamber and CMD < 100 nm - Particles mainly consisted of organic compounds were
al (2009)28 experiment flow tunnel volatile and hydrophobic. Particles are formed by
nucleation of SVOC and secondary particle formation.
Printer fuser temperature control is important in terms of
particle emission
Schripp et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber PSD mode 1:5.6- - Particle emission tests were conducted in 1-m3 and 24-m3 CFD modeling showed
(2009)35 experiment (AER = 3 h-1); 20 nm; PSD mode chambers as well as in an office room. “Initial burst” emitter that for a mechanically
24-m3 chamber 2:20-200 nm (A) and “constant emitter” (B) were distinguished from the ventilated office
(AER = 1 and time-dependent particle emission rates. The total emitted environment, the
2 h-1); 55-m3 particles were comparable for printer A between different air circulation was
office room test environments, but not for printer B usually not uniform.
(AER = 0.35 h-1) The particle may be
localized, and not well
distributed over the
room space
Wensing et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber - - Emission tests were conducted. The volatility of particles
(2009a)108 experiment (AER = 3 h-1) was studied using a thermodenuder heated to 400°C. No
particles were detected at 400°C, indicating no presence
of solid components of UFPs
Wensing et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber - - Emission tests were conducted at different fuser
(2009b)39 experiment (AER = 3 h-1) temperatures. A change in the fuser temperature of 10 K
considerably changed the number of UFPs emitted
He et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber - number: 45 emission tests were carried out on 30 laser printers from
(2010)38 experiment 1.70 ± 1.20 × 1010 - various manufacturers. Fuser roller temperature was the
8.10 ± 5.29 × 1010 strongest factor controlling particle number emission rates,
particles/min; but not statistically correlated with PM2.5 and ozone
PM2.5:0.52-736 µg/
min
GU et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 2 (Continued)

References Study category Chamber, AER PSD Particle emission rates Results Note
GU et al.

3 6
Barthel et al Chamber 1-m chamber ca. 10-80 nm (Printer Number: 2.7 × 10 - Emission tests were conducted on 10 printers and size- Ca, Cl, and Ti were
(2011)9 experiment 7); 20-100 nm (Printer 7.6 × 109 particles/ segregated particles during printing were collected for XRF related to the paper.
10) page analysis. About 99% of the UFPs consist of SVOCs, and Fe, Si, Ti, S, Zn, Ni, and
evaporate under 400°C. Elements including Si, S, Cl, Ca, Cr were associated
Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Zn were associated with toner and paper, with toner. Br was
and contributed up to 2% of the particles. Trace amount of attributed to the
inorganic elements were attributed to the toner, paper, or printer structural
printer housing components
Wang et al Chamber 27.2-m3 chamber PSD mode: 20-150 nm - The emitted aerosol mainly consisted of carbon-based In TEM/EDS analysis,
(2011)13 experiment (AER = 5.6 h-1) nanoparticles, likely formed through ion-induced airborne particles
nucleation of vaporized organic compounds. The fugitive evaporate rapidly
toner particles and paper coatings were not important under TEM, indicating
particle sources particles were
presumably organics
Byeon and Chamber 5-m3 chamber Mean diameter: mass: 0.007 mg/h Particle emission tests were conducted at three printing
Kim (2012) 43 experiment (AER = 1.0 h-1) 50-244 nm (5 ppm); 0.039 mg/h speeds (5, 24, and 38 pages per minute). Due to
(24 ppm); 0.449 mg/h coagulation, particle diameters were proportional to the
(38 ppm) printing speed. But PNCs were inversely proportional to
printing speed. Particle mass emission rates increased with
higher printing speed
Castellano et Chamber 1-m3 glove- Particle size increased - Measurements of particle emissions were conducted in Chamber was opened
al (2012)109 experiment box chamber from 10 nm (printing the chamber during 3500 pages of printing. The size- every 120 prints,
(AER = 2.5 h-1) starts) to 30-40 nm segregated particle chemical composition analysis was roughly about 28 times
(after 120 prints) conducted. From ICP-MS and SEM-EDS analyses, Ba, Zn, B, to achieve 3500 pages
K, Sr, and Na were detected (attributed to the toner); while of prints. Activities
Ca, Zn, and Mg in 0.56-1 µm were associated with paper of reloading papers,
occurrence of paper
jams, or change of
cartridges were not
reported
Jayaratne et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber CMD 46 nm at the end number: 4.2 × 10 8- Charged particles were measured. UFP emission rates were
(2012) 47 experiment of printing 3.1 × 109 particles/ 4.2 × 10 8-3.1 × 109 particles/page, and the positive ion
page emissions were 6.0 × 106-6.9 × 107 ions/page printed
Salthammer et Chamber 1-, 24-, and 48- Vast majority of number: approx. Emission tests of printers were carried out following
al (2012)10 experiment m3 chambers particles < 100 nm 3 × 1010 -4 × 1012 ECMA 328 protocol. Particle intake in the human lung
and exposure (AER = 3, particles/page was calculated using emission data and ICRP model. The
assessment 1, and 0.5 h-1, calculated alveolar deposition of the particle surface area
respectively) when sitting for 8 h was 96 mm2 and 320 mm2 in 48-m3
chamber and office, respectively
Seeger Chamber 1-m3 chamber PSD range: 5-300 nm - Particle filters reduced the concentrations of UFPs emitted
(2012)110 experiment (AER = 4 h-1) from printers
|
403

(Continues)
TA B L E 2 (Continued)
404
|

References Study category Chamber, AER PSD Particle emission rates Results Note

Wang et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber PSD mode: 45 nm - The experiment confirmed that ozone reacted with printer-
(2012) 48 experiment (AER = 0.5 h-1) generated VOCs to form secondary aerosols. Squalene
and styrene were the most likely precursors of secondary
organic aerosols
Park and Park Chamber 5-m3 chamber - - Emission tests of 13 printers were conducted according to
(2013) 40 experiment (AER = 2.0 h-1) ECMA 328 protocol. The fuser temperature was strongly
correlated with particle emission rates for a specific printer.
Particle emission rates were not related to the fuser type
and printing speeds
Pirela et al Chamber 0.52-m3 glove- Mainly < 100 nm; PSD - An exposure platform was developed for sampling laser A test consisted of
(2014)14 experiment box chamber mode: 49-208 nm printing emitted particles for toxicological study. High continuous printing
PNCs in the chamber were observed. PM2.5 and PM10 for 60 minutes. The
concentrations increased during printing use of self-sufficient
flow rate (~30 L/min,
inflow = outflow) may
lead to concentrated
particle levels. It used
the gloves to handle
printers inside the
chamber (change toner
cartridge, add papers
and clear paper jams)
Varnskuhler et Chamber 1.25-m3 - Number: 3.1 × 1011 Emission tests of a laser printer were carried out according
al (2014)111 experiment chamber and particles/min; TSP: to the RAL-UZ 171 protocol. Office measurement found
and office a unventilated 1.84 mg/h very low concentrations of metals (Fe, Ti, Va, Mn, Cr).
measurement office About 1.2% of UFP were linked to solid toner components
Pirela et al Chamber 0.52-m3 glove- Mainly < 100 nm; PSD - Physicochemical and morphological characterization of The argument that
(2015)15 experiment box chamber mode: 49-208 nm particles from laser printing was conducted. Chemical LPD-emitted UFPs
composition of printer-emitted particles shared some are engineered
similarity (but still quite different) with toner and paper nanomaterials was
composition based on plausible,
but not convincing
evidence
Scungio et al Chamber 1-m3 chamber PSD mode: 30-60 nm Number: 3.39 × 10 8- 110 printers were tested for particle emission rates.
(2017)36 experiment 1.61 × 1012 particles/ Exposure to laser printer particles was modeled. A dose
and risk min of 2.7 mm2/day was obtained for office employees. Laser
assessment printing is a minor source of indoor particles
GU et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 2 (Continued)

References Study category Chamber, AER PSD Particle emission rates Results Note
GU et al.

3 9
Sung et al Chamber 5-m chamber Mainly < 100 nm number: 1.2 × 10 - Emission tests were conducted for 15 printers according
(2017)12 experiment 2.3 × 1010 particles/ to ECMA 328 protocol. UFPs were mainly organic
min compounds, attributed to toner components that
formed via evaporation, nucleation, and condensation.
The fuser temperature influenced UFP emission rates.
Electromagnetic field reduced UFP by 40%. TEM/EDS
analysis detected C, O (>70%), Ti, Fe, Sn, and Si. GPC (gel
permeation chromatography) indicated that particles may
be formed from (evaporated) gaseous pollutants, rather
than pristine toner particles
Wang et al Chamber 0.8-m3 chamber Mainly 80-120 nm - It studied the influence of toner coverage, number of pages
(2017) 41 experiment printed, fuser temperature, and cartridge rotation on UFP
emission. Toner coverage and cartridge rotation influenced
the particle emission. Particle emission rates increased with
fuser temperature
Zhao (2017)32 Chamber 0.53-m3 chamber Mainly < 100 nm - UFP emissions were associated with the printer operating
experiment parameters. UFP emissions showed non-linear relationship
with printed pages and page coverage
Serfozo et al Chamber 7.56-m3 chamber Vast majority ˂ 50 nm - Nanoparticles < 50 nm increased during laser printing. Fine It is argued that excess
(2018)31 experiment and in printing with PSD mode particle number and mass concentrations were low during and residual toner on
and room room at ~ 15 nm chamber measurements (5 particles/cm3 and 0.44 µg/m3). fuser roller caused
measurement Human dose was increased compared with background the emission of
during printing: 3.0 × 10 8-3.5 × 109 particles/5 min nanoparticles
Koivisto et al Aerosol Aerosol dynamic CMD 42 nm - Modeled results: at AER of 2.0 h-1, the 6-h average PNC in
(2010)112 modeling modeling for the office increased from 2.3 × 103 to 3.9 × 10 4 particles/
a 62-m3 office cm3. The peak PNC was 2.5 × 105 particles/cm3
room
|
405
406 | GU et al.
the Fuchs correction,46 it can be estimated that the evaporating
substances must have a very low vapor pressure (approx. <10
at 298 K). Barthel et al9 tested 10 LPDs and found that about 99%
of the particles evaporate below a temperature of 400°C. Similar
experiments on the volatility of particles were performed on 19 dif-
10
ferent printers with a thermodenuder by Salthammer et al.
temperature of 400°C, no more particles were detected at the ther-
modenuder outlet. This confirms the theory that LPD particles are
largely volatile in nature. Jayaratne et al47 found around 1% of the
emitted particles are charged (always positively).
Pirela et al15 measured the morphologies of toner particles and
LPD-emitted particles. The bulk toner powders were characterized
as regular and irregular spheres of a size range 10-15 µm. Airborne
particles around 100 nm with near-spherical shape, and agglomer-
ated particles around 300 nm were detected. More information on
particle properties from the reviewed studies is provided in Table 2.
3.2.5 | Particle formation mechanisms
Based on current knowledge on the particle physical and chemical
properties, it is generally considered that LPD particles are predomi-
nately formed through the nucleation and condensation of SVOCs,
which evaporated during the fusing processing. Figure 4 shows a sche-
matic diagram of the particle formation mechanism. Morawska et al28
studied the physicochemical properties of particles emitted from laser
printing and suggested (a) nucleation and condensation of SVOCs, and
(b) secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation being the two main par-
ticle formation mechanisms. The former mechanism was confirmed by
many chamber studies.9-13 In addition, Wang et al48 demonstrated that
laser printing emitted VOCs could react quickly with ozone and form
SOA in the nanometer size range. This reaction could occur inside or
outside the printer. In a real indoor environment, ozone concentrations
3 49
of 20-30 µg/m are not uncommon and the emitted VOCs may react
quickly with ozone. The formation of SOA from gas-phase and surface-
related reactions between ozone and unsaturated VOCs is well de-
scribed in the indoor environment.50
14,15
Pirela et al came up with a new particle formation mechanism
that UFPs are emitted as pristine engineered nanoparticles present in
the toner powder. The argument was mainly based on two findings of
(a) nanoparticles were observed (with TEM) to be attached on the mi-
crometer-sized toner particles, and (b) the size of the airborne particles
in TEM/EDS analysis was similar with the size distribution measured
by Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) (mean diameter 34-53 nm).
The reasoning by Pirela et al15 is not adequate as it failed to recognize
that most particles are volatile, as shown by, for example, Salthammer
et al10 and Barthel et al,9 and could not survive the TEM/EDS analysis.13
Therefore, the remaining particles detected by TEM may not be rep-
resentative for all the emitted particles. Secondly, they did not discuss
the role of nucleation, condensation, or secondary aerosol formation
in their study, which have been demonstrated to be the main UFP for-
10,12,28,48,51
mation pathways. Lastly, other studies have demonstrated
that UFP concentrations were highly increased when printing with 0%
toner coverage12,42 or without toner on a modified laser printer,30 im-
−6
Pa plying that UFP could be emitted even without toner. Therefore, this
newly proposed mechanism needs to be verified. Nonetheless, when
nanometer-sized materials are added in the printer toner, the direct re-
lease of toner particles to the air deserves further studies.
At a
3.3 | Results from office/room measurements
A list of studies on office/room measurements is provided in Table 3.
Many studies showed increases of UFP concentrations in offices
during printing. 27,34,35,42,52-54 McGarry et al52 screened 107 printers
in five office buildings and classified 45 as emitters (ratio of PNC
peak value to background PNC > 1). During printing, the peak PNC
levels could be much greater than the local background.
In contrast, the measurements of particle mass (PM10, PM2.5, and
PM1.0) resulted in a mixed picture.
Tang et al55 reported a slight increase in PM2.5 and PM10 in
offices where laser printers were in use. The differences were,
however, not significant and were smaller than the measurement
precision tolerances for the gravimetric method. Horemans and Van
Grieken5 measured PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 in offices next to a major
street. Particles > 1 µm were lower indoors than outdoors, mainly
composed of crustal elements, and were related to dust resuspen-
sion. In contrast, indoor particles < 1 µm exceeded more often the
outdoor concentrations. The authors attributed it to the use of of-
fice printers; however, they should have excluded the measurements
with smoking, a strong source for particles < 1 µm. Another study by
Ch. and Gokhale found that PM1.0 in a working office in India was in
most time lower during the working hours (day time, 138-154 µg/
m3) than the non-working hours (night time, 134-204 µg/m3), which
the authors attributed to the use of air conditioning during working
hours and the closed ventilation during non-working hours.56 This
study demonstrated the strong influence of other factors on PM lev-
els, and the difficulty of distinguishing the PM contributions from
laser printing from high background levels.
Figure 5 shows the time series of PNCs in the size range of 0.3-
20 µm in a 55-m3 office room during four cascade laser printing.10
Increased PNC (0.3-20 µm) was observed with opening the win-
dows, but not during the printing process.
3.4 | Results from photocopy shop measurements
A limited number of measurements have been carried out in photo-
copy shops (Table 3). Most of them focused on the PNCs. Increased
PNCs were reported when compared with background. 24,51,57-60
PNCs were 9.78 × 103 particles/cm3 (weekdays) and 6.89 × 103 par-
ticles/cm3 (weekends) during operating hours compared with non-
operating hours of 5.45 × 103 particles/cm3. 51 Weekly geometric
mean PNCs between 3.3 × 103 particles/cm3 and 3.4 × 10 4 parti-
cles/cm3 were measured at eight photocopy centers. 58 Grgic et al59
obtained the mean PNCs between 3.6 × 103 and 6.5 × 103 particles/
GU et al.
cm3 during working hours in three photocopy rooms. Jamen and
60
Abdullah conducted measurements in 12 printing rooms and
found average PNC of 2.2 × 10 4 particles/cm3 and lung deposited
2 3
surface area (LDSA) of 43 µm /cm . In some cases, however, lower
indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratios (<1.0) were also observed. Martin et al61
found nine of 16 photocopy centers with I/O PNC ratios < 1.0.
The PM mass concentration was reported by a few studies. Lee
and Hsu57 found PM2.5 in the photocopy centers increased on aver-
age by 40 µg/m3 during the 8-h operation period than before oper-
24
ation. Bello et al reported the mean PM 0.1 (particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of up to 0.1 µm, referred to as ultrafine
particle fraction) and PM0.1-2.5 (particulate matter with aerodynamic
diameter between 0.1 and 2.5 µm) concentrations of 5 and 7.1 µg/
m3, respectively, in a university photocopy center.
Betha et al51 measured particles in the chamber and a photocopy
center and found increased PNC during printing. By analyzing the re-
lationship between BC and PNCs, they argued that the direct release
of UFPs from the toner is unlikely. Bello et al24 sampled airborne par-
ticles in a photocopy center and analyzed their chemical composition.
The particles were collected on one set of cascade filters for 2-3 weeks
with about 180 m3 sampled air. The major particle components by mass
were OC (~50%) and inorganics (~50%), of which S (5.7%), Si, (0.6%), Fe
(0.42%), Ca (0.23%), Zn (0.22%), Al (0.12%), and Ti (0.12%) were main
elements. Metal oxides were found in nano-sized airborne particles.
They also found alkanes between C17 and C40 in various particle frac-
tions. Ring-shaped and chain-shaped siloxane structures consisting
of (Me)2SiO units were observable. The cyclic siloxanes display rings
sized from 10 to 21 (Me)2SiO units. Martin et al58 obtained PM0.1 mass
concentrations between 1.8 and 6.4 µg/m3 from 8 photocopy centers.
They found PM0.1 contained 6%-63% OC, <1% EC, and 2%-8% metals.
These measurements in the photocopy centers provided good
occupational exposure data, but due to the limitations of this kind
of study, it is difficult to ascribe all the observed particles as being
emitted from printing. There are many factors influencing the par-
ticle levels in the photocopy shop, such as infiltration from outdoor
air, resuspension, and handling of toners and papers. During normal
printer use, these particles are not released into the air—but when
F I G U R E 2 Particle size distribution
in a 3-m3 chamber during laser printing
for 10 min. # denotes the number of
particles. Time 0 indicates the start of
printing. The data are from unpublished
experiments carried out at Fraunhofer
WKI in 2018
| 407
toner cartridges are being replaced, paper jams are cleared or other
maintenance is performed, there can be contact with toner con-
stituents.62,63 For normal users of LPDs and copiers, however, con-
tact with toner powder generally occurs in copy centers with a high
density of machines. Many studies17-19,64 have demonstrated that a
part of indoor PM2.5 and PM10 were of outdoor origin. In addition
to main components of OC, sulfate, and nitrate, many metals such
as Fe, Si, Al, Ca, Mg, Ti, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Cu can be found in outdoor
air, depending on the locations and sources. Bello et al24 and Martin
et al58 did not account for the outdoor and indoor background par-
ticles; therefore, their results represent occupational exposure but
cannot be regarded as emission characterization.
4 | H E A LTH E FFEC T S O F PA RTI C LE S FRO M
L A S E R PR I NTI N G
Emissions from laser printing systems are sometimes erroneously
equated with “toner dust.” In various articles, potential health im-
pairments through organic and inorganic constituents of toners have
been described,65-67 while at that time, the chemical composition of
airborne particles from LPDs was not yet known in detail. A num-
ber of studies later showed that the particles released by correctly
functioning LPDs are vaporizable and, therefore, volatile. As stated
earlier, the proportion of metallic components is only 1%-2%.
Table 4 summarizes the reviewed papers on health effects. From
a temporal point of view, literature can be roughly divided into two
phases. In the years 2006 to 2012, primarily results on physical and
chemical characterization of particle emissions were published.
From 2010, investigations on effects of these particles on organ-
isms followed. These studies, in turn, can be classified into four
categories:
a. Studies on cell cultures and animals concerning exposure to toner
material
b. Studies on cell cultures and animals concerning exposure to
printer emissions (from chambers and real rooms)
408 | GU et al.

F I G U R E 3 GC/MS chromatogram (retention time in min) of the SVOCs in the chamber air during laser printing. The figure is taken from
Schripp and Wensing11 with the permission for reproduction

c. Human studies in real-world settings (copy centers, offices)
d. Human studies under controlled conditions
One of the first studies on risk assessment through nanopar-
68
ticles from LPDs was performed by Hänninen et al. The authors
2
calculated alveolar deposition rates from 0.15 µg/d (8 mm /d) to
0.44 µg/d (22 mm2/d) for diverse exposure scenarios. McGarry et
al52 performed measurements of exposures to particles in office
buildings and identified 45 printers as emitters (PNC ratio ≥ 1 to
background) out of 107 printers. Although the peak PNCs were in-
creased during printing, the 8-hour time-weighted average printer
particle exposure was much lower than the 8-hour time-weighted
local background particle exposures. Scungio et al36 evaluated the
employees’ exposure to particles from laser printing using emission
rates from 110 laser printers. The daily particle dose of 2.7 mm2 was
obtained for typical printing conditions. The printing scenario used
by Scungio et al36 was 50 pages of print/employee/day; printing
speed of 31.5 pages/min; 5 employees in one office; and an office
space of 13.2 m2/employee. Overall, these studies all found rela-
tively low exposures to laser printer particles, and from both the ep-
idemiological and the toxicological standpoint, the mortality risk is
significantly lower than for exposure to particles in the ambient air.
Pirela et al21 criticized that the analysis of Hänninen et al68
might possibly underestimate the risks as a result of the special

Water vapor
p Aerosol
H2O H O 5-100 nm
2
H2O H2O H2O
H2O H O H2O
Lubricants H2O 2 H2O
H2O H2O H O H2O
VOC/SVOC 2
H2O H2O H2O H2O

VOC/SVOC + H2O
Waxes
Fuser
Printer
component F I G U R E 4 Schematic diagram of the
Paper particle formation mechanism from laser
printing
TA B L E 3 A summary of the published studies on particle emissions from LPDs in office/room and in photocopy shops/centers

Chamber/Office/Photocopy
GU et al.

References Study category description PSD Results Note

Office/Room measurement
Gemenetzis et al Office 40 rooms in Thessaloniki, - PM2.5, PM10, and particle chemical composition No information of laser printer availability
(2006)113 measurement Greece were measured in university rooms. PM2.5 and total and using frequency was provided
elemental concentrations were increased with smoking.
The influence of laser printer was not mentioned
Valuntaite and Office A room with copy machines - Ozone and PNC in the size range of 0.4-2.0 µm were
Girgždiene (2008)114 measurement measured. Intensity of copying work largely determined
the air pollutants in the room
Fiedler et al (2009)53 Office 8 new offices in Dessau, - PNC in the size range of 10 nm–1 µm in the offices was
measurement Germany; office sizes range measured before and during the printing. Increased
from 11 to 86 m2 PNC was observed compared with before the printing
process
Horemans and Van Office Offices next to a major road - PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 were measured in offices next The authors attributed the increase
Grieken (2010)5 measurement in Antwerp, Belgium to a major street. Particles > 1 µm were lower indoors of PM1.0 to the use of office printers;
than outdoors, mainly composed of crustal elements, however, the measurements with
and were related to dust resuspension. Indoor smoking should have been excluded, as it
particles < 1 µm exceeded more often the outdoor is a strong source for particles < 1 µm
concentrations
Yin et al (2010)115 Office Office (100 m to street Mode: 80 nm PNC was measured in an office environment. A peak in
measurement and 400 m to highway) in PNC time series was corresponding to laser printing of
Hangzhou, China 1.5 minutes.
McGarry et al (2011)52 Office Offices in a business unit in - Of the 107 printers assessed, 45 were emitters. During
measurement central business district of printing, the peak PNC levels could be much greater
Brisbane, Australia than the local background. The 8-h time-weighted
PNCs were significantly lower than the 8-h time-
weighted background PNC
Saraga et al (2011)116 Office Office in the urban - The I/O ratio for PM1.0 and PM2.5 ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 No information on the indoor activities
measurement background of Agia in office 2 (non-smokers’ office) was recorded
Paraskevi, Greece; 10 m
away from high traffic road
Tang et al (2012b)55 Office 63 offices in Gießen, - Measurements were conducted before, during, and after
measurement Freiburg, Trier, and Berlin, printing of 500 pages in the offices. Increase of UFP
Germany and fine particles were observed during and after the
printing processes
Ch. and Gokhale Office Working office in India - PM1.0 was measured in an office during working hours The high PM1.0 concentrations (134-
(2015)56 measurement and non-working hours. PM1.0 concentrations during 204 µg/m3) in non-working hours
working hours were in most scenarios lower than during indicated high background particle levels
non-working hours
|
409

(Continues)
TA B L E 3 (Continued)
410
|

Chamber/Office/Photocopy
References Study category description PSD Results Note

Chatoutsidou et al Office Mechanically ventilated - Particle size distribution and mass concentration
(2015)117 measurement offices in suburban area of were measured in offices. People with resuspension
Oslo, Norway activities were important sources of particles > 1 µm.
Printer is not found to be related to increased particle
concentrations
Shi et al (2015) 42 Office, clean - - UFPs from 55 printers were measured in offices, of
room, and which 37 are high emitters, 4 medium emitters, 5 low
photocopy emitters, and 9 non-emitters. Tests in a clean room
center show increased PNC with blank paper as well as with
measurement 5% toner coverage
Chatoutsidou et al Office Printer room and offices - Cleaning activities and printing were the most important
(2017)54 measurement with HVAC in a university in indoor sources for indoor UFPs. Printing leads to
Chania, Greece increase of indoor concentration of PN < 1 µm. Physical
presence of occupants or walking caused the increase
of PM > 2.5 µm
Szigeti et al (2017)118 Office 9 mechanically ventilated - Particulate matter in office buildings in Europe was
measurement office buildings in 6 investigated. PM characteristics varied greatly among
European countries office buildings. No strong association was found
between printing and PNC values
Morawska et al (2019) Office, chamber Testing of 190 laser printers - Among the 297 printers tested, 57% were non-emitters,
44
measurement in office, and 107 printers in 34% were low emitters, 5% were median emitters, and
a chamber 4% were high emitters. Compared with 2007, there has
been a shift, with more printers being low emitters and
fewer high emitters
Photocopy shop measurement
Lee and Hsu (2007)57 Photocopy center 12 photocopy centers in - PNC, PM2.5, ozone, and selected VOCs were
measurement Taiwan, China measured. The average PM2.5 (background corrected)
concentrations were in the range of 10-83 µg/m3. PNC
increased during the first hour of photocopying, and
then decreased
Betha et al (2011)51 Photocopy center University commercial - PNC 5.6-50 nm increased significantly compared with
measurement photocopy center in non-operating hours, while PNC 100-560 nm did not
Singapore significantly change. BC was correlated well with PNC
100-560 nm, but not with PNC 5.6-50 nm. UFPs may
be secondary aerosols from ozone-induced oxidation
of VOCs
GU et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 3 (Continued)

Chamber/Office/Photocopy
GU et al.

References Study category description PSD Results Note

24
Bello et al (2013) Photocopy center University photocopy center - Particles were sampled for 2-3 weeks in the photocopy No control measurement seemed to
measurement in United States center on working days. PNC, morphology, and conducted when no photocopy activities
chemical composition of airborne particles were occurred. The study failed to account for
analyzed. PM 0.1, PM 0.1-2.5, and PM2.5-10 concentrations other particle sources such as outdoor
were 4.3, 5.8, and 7.4 µg/m3, respectively. OC particles and particle resuspension). The
accounted for 50% of airborne PM 0.1 mass, followed by total metal concentrations of PM 0.1 in the
Si and S, while metals including Fe, Zn, Al, Ti, Ca, and Sn photocopy center was at low levels of
contributed 1% to PM 0.1 mass about 43 ng/m3
Martin et al (2015)58 Photocopy center 8 commercial photocopy CMD: PM 0.1 mass concentrations were in the range of 1.8- Cross-contamination from outside may
measurement centers in Boston, United 28-38 nm 6.4 µg/m3. Differences in the chemical composition bias the particle measurements
States were observed between toner powders and airborne
PM 0.1. Metals (including Fe, Zn, Ti, Cr, Ni, and Mn)
contributed 2%-8% to the PM 0.1 mass
Grgic et al (2016)59 Photocopy center Printing and photocopy Bimodal: PSD and PNC were measured in three rooms. Increased
measurement center in Ljubljana, Slovenia 30 nm and PNC was observed and associated with laser printing
50-150 nm and photocopying activity. Ventilation was important
affecting the lifetime of the aged nanoparticles
Martin et al (2017)61 Photocopy center 15 photocopy centers in the - PNC was measured in the working hours and non-
measurement northeast United States working hours, indoor and outdoor, respectively. Indoor
to outdoor PNC ratio was in the range of 0.1 and 4.2,
and was >1.0 in 40% (6 of 15) photocopy centers
Vicente et al (2017)119 Photocopy center 2 copy centers in Aveiro, - PM10, ozone, formaldehyde, and VOCs were measured This study shows that the copy center in
measurement Portugal in two copy centers, one in urban background, and the city center was strongly influenced
the other in city center next to street. In two copy by outdoor PM10
centers, mean PM10 mass concentrations were 55.8 and
51.3 µg/m3, respectively. OC accounted for 27.6% and
18.6% of indoor PM10, respectively, which were higher
than the OC fraction in outdoor PM10 (11.5%)
Voliotis et al (2017)120 Photocopy center Printing store 70-90 nm in PNC and PSD were measured in a printing store. “The PNCs levels during nighttime (22:00-
measurement the largest Particle deposition and dose were calculated using 6:00) were considered as background.”
part of multiple-path particle dosimetry (MPPD) model. The
working mean deposition in the whole lung was 2.0 × 109 and
shift 2.7 × 109 particles/min for two breathing scenarios
Jamen and Abdullah Photocopy center 12 printing rooms in west - PNC and lung deposited surface area (LDSA) were
(2018)60 measurement Malaysia measured. Mean PNC and LDSA were 2.2 × 10 4
particles/cm3 and 43 µm2/cm3, respectively. The
ventilation conditions may explain the difference of
UFP levels between color and monochrome printing
rooms
|
411
412 | GU et al.

Particle number concentration (#/cm³) 160 Window open environmental emissions; in light of current knowledge, however,

140
Window open
120 Start
print 1
100
80
60
40
20
PM2.5 = 17.2 µg/m³; PM10 = 18.1 µg/m³
0 tion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, cytotoxicity and apoptosis,62,76
0 50
F I G U R E 5 Number concentrations of particles (# denotes the
number of particles) in the size range of 0.3-20 µm over a course of
4 cascade laser printing experiment in a 55-m3 office room. PM2.5
and PM10 concentrations were measured by filter sampling and
gravimetric analysis. The figure is taken from Salthammer et al10
with the permission for reproduction
characteristics of printer emissions. This assessment, however, does
not appear plausible when considering the chemical composition
and reactions of urban and rural aerosols.69 Furthermore, various
studies have shown that, at least in the home environment, com-
pared to other sources like household appliances
tivities,16 exposure to LPD-emitted particles plays only a moderate
to subordinate role.
On the basis of a case study, Theegarten et al70 postulated that
inhalative exposure to carbon nanoparticles from toner dust may
lead to submesothelial deposition in the peritoneum. This notion,
however, seems to be based on an incorrect interpretation of the
work of Wensing et al.30 Theegarten and colleagues were made
aware that the cited work of Wensing et al
references or conclusions whatsoever to carbon nanoparticles in
laser printer emissions.71
The aforementioned study by Pirela et al21 offers a comprehen-
sive overview. A total of 54 studies were evaluated, of which 32
concerned emissions and 22 addressed toxicological effects from
categories (b) and (c). Work on exposure to toner was not taken into
consideration, based on the notion that studies on the toxicity of
72-74
toner are only relevant in cases of direct contact with the mate-
rial itself. The authors provide a very detailed overview with respect
to components measured in printer emissions. In addition, the mech-
anisms through which nanoparticles are formed and the conditions
influencing their formation are also discussed.
Studies on cell cultures or on animals62,63,75-79 have attracted
comments from Pirela et al21 correctly emphasizing their inherent
limitations and comprehensively discussing the relationship between
experimental exposures and real-world exposures. Furthermore,
beyond the effects on the respiratory system, possible effects of
a translocation of nanoparticles, for example, into the nervous sys-
tem or brain, have been considered. Such effects are discussed for
the statements are somewhat speculative. The discussion by Pirela
et al21 also highlights the fact that, depending on the chemical com-
Start Start Start position, nanoparticles behave differently in cell culture systems,
print 2 print 3 print 4
thereby making it difficult to compare the toxicity. A further prob-
lem is the type of exposure or deposition of particles in such systems
(instillation, air-liquid interface, etc). The fact that several studies at-
tempted to reduce the limitations of exposure of individual cell types
by means of co-culture systems with two cell types is also discussed.
Findings from in vitro studies on effects of laser printer emis-
sions on human cells include the formation of micronuclei,75 induc-
100 150 200 250 300 350 and epigenetic effects.78 However, on the basis of experiences with
Time (min) cell culture systems, as well as with co-culture systems, the central
objection remains that cell culture systems always represent solely
artificial, strongly reduced depictions of the natural environment,
and can at best be deployed to investigate mechanisms; generally,
however, a risk assessment is not directly possible. The entire reg-
ulatory and immunological environment, including clearance mech-
anisms, is lacking, as are, generally, flow and exchange of media as
well as other components.80 Therefore, while valuable basic insights
into pathways possibly also relevant in vivo can be gained from cell
culture studies, conclusions from these data still have to be drawn
with caution, including possible indications of epigenetic effects.
On the other hand, epidemiological studies require a very care-
10
and cooking ac- ful estimation of exposure and a reliable assessment of potential
effects. Whether this is still possible in view of, firstly, multiple ex-
posures and variable living conditions and, secondly, “public aware-
ness,” is not discussed by Pirela et al. 21 In summary, the work of
Pirela et al21 provides an excellent and also critical overview of the
level of knowledge up to 2017, additionally comprising new research
approaches. It does not, however, lead to a reassessment of the pos-
sible health-related risks of LPD emissions but rather suggests that
30
does not contain any on the basis of currently available evidence the average health risk
for humans is quite low.
The critical and self-critical comments of Pirela et al21 concerning
data obtained in humans, both on case observations and on stud-
ies of collectives of exposed persons or exposure studies, do not,
unfortunately, go far enough. The final outcomes of many studies
are irrelevant, as they exhibit methodological deficiencies and the
influence of side effects can be massive. This applies to most studies
on groups of volunteers in normal life situations. It would also be
interesting to know how many surveys carried out on exposed per-
sons were negative and not published. The fact that all the studies
listed by Pirela et al21 claimed a positive effect may mean that the
data situation is unbalanced. In addition to the heterogeneity of the
results, particularly in the case studies, the absence of studies into
reproducibility as well as prospective data obtained under controlled
conditions is perturbing.
Many studies are based on an insufficient number of test persons.
Theegarten et al70 describe an individual case, while the study by
Khatri et al81 refers to nine investigated persons who were exposed
to printer emissions for several hours in a copy shop. However, the
TA B L E 4 A summary of the published studies on possible health effects of laser printer emissions

References Study category Method Results Note

GU et al.

Goud et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- 29 photocopy workers and 26 controls were tested for DNA damage The study did not address the influence of
(2001)121 control study, in India and repairs. Increased DNA damages and decreased DNA repair smokers. Of the 29 photocopy workers in the
efficiency were observed in the photocopy workers compared with DNA damage test, 14 were smokers. Smokers
the control group have much higher DNA damage (16.45) than
non-smokers (5.56)
Gadhia et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- Chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchange frequencies 12 photocopying machine operators and 12
(2005)90 control study, in India were evaluated from 12 photocopy machine operators who worked controls were included
full time for more than 5 years. Significant increases were found in the
percentage of aberrant cells, total aberrations, and total aberrations
excluding chromatid gaps, but not on the chromatid exchange
frequencies
Jaakkola et al Health effects Epidemiological study—cross- The study included a random sample of 1016 adults in South Finland,
(2007) 86 sectional study, in south of whom 342 are office workers: "Exposure to paper dust and to FPP
Finland (Fumes from photocopiers and printers) is related to the risk of SBS
symptoms, breathlessness, and upper respiratory infections."
Balakrishnan and Health effects Epidemiological study—case- A group of photocopier workers (34 smokers, 32 non-smokers) Mean period of exposure of the workers to the
Das (2010)122 control study, in India were studied for the frequency of chromosomal aberrations (CA) photocopying machines was 9.73 years (non-
in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Significantly increased CAs were smokers) and 10.59 years (smokers)
observed in photocopier workers than the controls
Kleinsorge et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- Human health endpoints were measured in 26 photocopy machine
(2011)91 control study, in Argentina operators and 52 control subjects in Santa Fe, Argentina
Elango et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- Lung function and inflammatory markers in 81 photocopier operators Smokers were included (30% in photocopier
(2013) 84 control study, in India and 43 control subjects in India were studied: Long-term exposure workers and 19% in control group). High
was not associated with decreased lung function, but resulted in high background (ambient) particle concentrations
oxidative stress and systemic inflammation
Butt et al Health effects Epidemiological study, in Health symptoms like dry mouth and fatigue were found in 126 No control group was included
(2014)123 Pakistan photocopier operators in Pakistan
Awodele et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- Hematological parameters and oxidative stress were evaluated in 50 The study included 50 subjects and 10 controls
(2015)124 control study, in Nigeria photocopier operators and 10 controls. Significantly increased levels
of oxidative stress were found in the subjects, but no significant
differences for hematological parameters
Karimi et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- 150 photocopy workers and 116 controls were surveyed. Their
(2016)125 control study, in Iran pulmonary function indexes were tested: forced vital capacity (FVC)
and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were significantly lower in
photocopy workers than controls; significant differences were found
for coughing and wheezing between two groups
Khatri et al Health effects Epidemiological study—case- Human health endpoints including inflammatory markers and oxidative Small sample size: 6 photocopiers and 11
(2017) 85 control study, in the northeast stress were measured on photocopiers and controls, respectively, controls were included in the study
United States by taking nasal lavage and urine samples; 5 out of 14 inflammatory
cytokines were elevated significantly in photocopier operators
|
413

(Continues)
TA B L E 4 (Continued)
414
|

References Study category Method Results Note

93
Kasi et al (2018) Health effects Epidemiological study—case- 50 photocopier operators, 61 maintenance personnel and 52 controls
control study, in India in Coimbatore of South India were included in the study, and their
genotoxicity was evaluated via Comet assay. Both photocopier
exposed groups (operators and maintenance personnel) exhibited
significantly increased DNA damage compared to controls
Khatri et al Health effects Human exposure The human health effects of short-term exposure (6 h) in the Small sample size: 9 subjects were recruited
(2013a) 81 photocopy center were studied: “Following exposure, 8-OH-dG
and several pro-inflammatory cytokines were elevated 2-10 folds
compared with pre-exposure levels and remained elevated for up to
36 h.”
Herbig et al Health effects Human exposure Short-term exposure to laser printing was conducted with 52 subjects
(2018)100 in an exposure chamber, under low-level exposure, and high-
level exposure scenarios, respectively: "acute psychological and
cognitive effects of laser printer emissions were small and could be
attributed……but not to differences in exposure conditions in terms of
particle number concentrations."
Karrasch et al Health effects Human exposure Short-term exposure to laser printing was conducted with 52 subjects
(2017)99 in an exposure chamber, under low-level exposure, and high-level
exposure scenarios, respectively: "acute responses to short but very
high-level LPD exposures were small and did not indicate clinically
relevant effects compared to low particle number concentrations."
Tang et al Health effects In vitro study—use of human It studied cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of 5 laser printing emissions
(2012a)75 cells using an air/liquid exposure system. The air from the 1-m3 chamber
(equipped with a laser printer) was directly connected to the Vitrocell
exposure system: “none of the printer emissions were found to
cause cytotoxicity, emissions from two printers induced formation of
micronuclei,…”
Khatri et al Health effects In vitro study—use of human The toxicity of PM 0.25–2.0 sampled in a University photocopy center PM 0.25–2.0 was sampled in a University
(2013c)62 cells on three human-derived cell lines was analyzed: “Airborne PM 0.25–2.0 photocopy center during working hours.
collected at one photocopier center was capable of inducing several
pro-inflammatory cytokines and apoptosis, but no genotoxicity,…”
Khatri et al Health effects In vitro study—use of human The toxicity of PM 0.1 sampled in a University photocopy center PM 0.1 was sampled in a University photocopy
(2013b)76 cells on three human-derived cell lines was analyzed: “Copier-emitted center during working hours
nanoparticles induced the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines,
apoptosis, and modest cytotoxicity but no DNA damage in all three
human cell lines.”
GU et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 4 (Continued)

References Study category Method Results Note

GU et al.

Sisler et al Health effects In vitro study—use of human It investigated the toxicological effects of printer-emitted PM 0.1 was sampled in the 0.52-m3 chamber.
(2015)77 cells nanoparticles in a human alveolar-capillary co-culture model. Results:
printed-emitted particles at low, non-cytotoxic exposure levels are
bioactive and affect cellular response in an alveolar-capillary co-
culture model.
Lu et al (2016a)78 Health effects In vitro study—use of human It tested the toxicity (epigenetic effects) of printer-emitted engineered PM 0.1 was sampled in the 0.52-m3 chamber with
cells nanoparticles (PEPs), mild steel welding fumes (MS-WF), copper oxide printer B1, as described in Pirela et al (2014)14
(CuO), and titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles. The exposure to
engineered nanoparticles has geno- and cytotoxic effects and affect
the epigenome of target cells
Lu et al (2016b)79 Health effects In vivo study—use of mice The epigenetic alterations due to CuO and printer-emitted particles PM 0.1 was sampled in the 0.52-m3 chamber with
(PEPs) in lung tissue, alveolar macrophages, and peripheral blood printer B1, as described in Pirela et al (2014)14
from intratracheally instilled mice were evaluated: “CuO and PEPs can
induce epigenetic alterations in a mouse experimental model,…”
Pirela et al Health effects In vivo study—use of mice The toxicity of PM 0.1 and PM 0.1-2.5 sampled in a photocopy center was PM was sampled in a university copy center
(2013)63 studied using mice. Three levels of particles, 0.2, 0.6, and 2.0 mg/ during working hours
kg bw, were intratracheally instilled. “Mice instilled with PM 0.1
(2.0 mg/kg bw) had significant increase in neutrophil number, lactate
dehydrogenase and albumin compared with vehicle control,” but no
significant effects observed for PM 0.1 with 0.2 and 0.6 mg/kg bw
instillation, nor for all three instillation levels of PM 0.1-2.5
Hänninen et al Risk Exposure and risk assessment The estimated daily uptake of laser printer particles was 0.15-
(2010)68 Assessment for scenarios of office, home 0.44 µg/d (1.1-1.3 × 109 particles/d). The estimated risk corresponds
office, and home. to 4-13 (for particle mass) or 12-34 (for particle number) deaths per
million persons exposed. The risk due to laser printer particles was
substantially lower than ambient particles
Chalbot et al Risk Risk Assessment Toner powder and printer-emitted particles were studied for the PM 0.1 was sampled in the 0.52-m3 chamber.
(2017)94 Assessment functional and molecular composition: “significant differences Hypothesis is proposed that the differences
between the abundance of non-exchangeable organic hydrogen of in the PAHs in the toner powder and printer-
toner powder and PEPs”; it found low molecular weight PAHs in the emitted particles are due to the catalytic
toner powder, and high molecular weight PAHs in PEPs; extremely oxidation
low PAH content was found in toner powder (7.2 ng/mg) and in PM 0.1
(16 ng/mg)
Su et al (2018)92 Risk Risk Assessment It measured the particulate matter and VOCs (formaldehyde, benzene,
Assessment toluene, and xylene) and ozone in printing rooms. US EPA inhalation
risk assessment model was used to assess the cancer and non-cancer
risks
|
415

(Continues)
TA B L E 4 (Continued)
416
|

References Study category Method Results Note

Zhang et al Health effects Risk Assessment Laser printer was operating in a 0.52-m3 chamber. The emitted PM 0.1 was sampled in the 0.52-m3 chamber with
(2019) 88 particles and vapors were studied for their abilities to generate printer B1, as described in Pirela et al (2014)14
short-lived reactive oxygen species (ROS) and H2O2. The transit metal
oxides contributed to a small fraction of constitutes of printer-emitted
PM 0.1, but are responsible for the majority of ROS
Theegarten et al Health effects Case report, in Germany A case report of a female office worker developed weight loss and Theegarten and colleagues were made
(2010)70 diarrhea. Submesothelial aggregates of carbon nanoparticles (CNP) aware that the cited work does not contain
was found. The authors attributed the CNP to the printer emissions any references whatsoever that carbon
based on an incorrect interpretation of the work by Wensing et al30 nanoparticles observed in laser printer
that laser printing is a source of CNP, while in fact it is not emissions.71
D'Alessandro et al Health effects Case report, in Germany A governmental clerk reported acute respiratory discomfort and cough It was caused by accidental inhalation of toner
(2013)126 after an accidental exposure to toner dust while changing a cartridge dust
Lucas and Maes Health effects Case study, review The review described the clinical picture of symptoms related to Note the conflict of interest
(2013) 87 exposure to laser printers and photocopiers (LP & P), and the possible
mechanisms
Dutta and Deka Health effects Survey, in India It conducted a survey on individual interview and resulted in 150 cases. A survey study
(2012)127 A number of symptoms were recorded including nausea, backbone
pain, eye irritation, loss of hair, and running of noses in the individuals
of long-term exposure to photocopier operation
Pirela et al Health effects Review A review on the particle emissions and health effects
(2017)21
Shin et al Emission and Measurement in a NanoHood Emissions from printing and paper shredding were measured in a
(2019)128 Health effects NanoHood. UFPs increased during printing while fine particles and
UFPs increased during paper shredding. Printing-emitted particles
contain elements including Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, N, K, P, S, and Si. Paper
particles contain Al, Br, Ca, Cl, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, N, Na, Ni, P, S, and Si.
Paper particles did not elicit cytotoxicity to BEAS2B and HBE1 cells
GU et al.
GU et al.
conditions here were not standardized, the exposure of individuals
was subject to strong fluctuations, and there was no control expo-
sure with the printers switched off. Mersch-Sundermann et al82 per-
formed a pilot study in which they exposed six people to emissions
from operating laser printers. Despite extensive measurements of
the indoor air as well as lung-function parameters and inflammation
markers, the results of the clinical investigations were not homoge-
neous for the investigated subjects.83 For statistical reasons alone,
it is virtually impossible for a small number of test persons to reli-
ably prove or verify an effect. In general, statistical fluctuations can
simulate effects in groups containing only a few test persons; these
effects then disappear again with a larger number of subjects.
The published findings for persons who spend time in copy
centers or offices with printers are manifold. They range from ox-
idative stress and inflammatory reactions84,85 to sick building syn-
drome (SBS) 86 and on to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).87 It should
be noted that the work of Jaakkola et al86 refers to data collected
between 1997 and 2000. For the reported symptoms, Lucas and
Maes87 suggest pharmacological treatment with cinnamon and hy-
drogen on a purely speculative basis. Zhang et al88 reported on the
formation of reactive oxidative species (ROS) in printer emissions.
The transition metal oxides, which accounted for approximately 3%
of the particulate mass, thereby contributed a significantly higher
ROS formation potential than the organic compounds. Although this
is one of the first works to link printer emissions to ROS, the subject
itself is by no means new or unusual. The mechanisms, which lead to
the formation of ROS from nanoparticles, are well known. Transition
metals are probably involved in the formation of ROS via Fenton-
type reactions.89
A whole series of studies address the exposure of persons in pho-
tocopy centers and printing rooms.58,81,84,85,90-92 In some studies, an
attempt is made to bridge the gap between particle exposure and
the chemical composition of the toner. 24,93,94 The measurement re-
sults themselves should not be questioned; however, the attribution
of observations to printer emissions as compared to other possible
influences may be questioned. Many of the studies mentioned were
carried out in megacities in countries such as India and Pakistan, in
which generally high concentrations of particles are observed in the
outdoor air.95 However, outdoor air quality, that is, PM10, PM2.5, NOx,
SO2, CO, and PAHs, is often not monitored or taken into account.
Also, protocols on printer maintenance, printer failures, presence of
the general public, cleaning measures, and other emission sources
are usually lacking. In the study by Elango et al,84 the measured
mean particulate background exposure in Indian copy centers was
PM10 = 242 µg/m3 and PM2.5 = 128 µg/m3, which complicates the
comparative quantification of the role LPD emissions may play in
comparison.83 Martin et al61 have addressed the largely neglected
problem of insufficient air exchange in copy centers. Different au-
thors16,96-98 have shown that human activities and the operation of
electronic devices can be expected to produce a wide range of gas-
eous and particulate emissions. The complexity of the dynamics of
particles and other air pollutants in a photocopy center is presented
in Figure 1.
| 417
The studies discussed so far are in categories (a) to (c). The results
of a human study under controlled conditions were first published
by Karrasch et al99 and Herbig et al.100 A total of 52 persons were
each exposed to emissions from laser printers in a test chamber for
75 minutes. Twenty-three persons were healthy, 15 persons (af-
fected) had reported symptoms related to printer emissions prior to
the studies, and 14 persons were patients with mild asthma. Overall,
the results of this study did not indicate that laser printer emis-
sions induce objectively measurable pathophysiological processes
that correspond to the complaints described by those affected. No
specific alterations in lung function or inflammation markers attrib-
utable to emissions were observed. One limitation of the study is
that the investigations covered only a relatively short period of both
exposure and follow-up. However, while long-term monitoring of
human exposure and its potential effects would be highly informa-
tive and relevant, this approach poses substantial practical difficul-
ties regarding the control of potentially interfering influences. On
the other hand, the particle concentrations during the investigations
considerably exceeded the usual values at workplaces; that is, the
probability of an effect was possibly increased. The psychological
aspects of the study also revealed little evidence of differential ef-
fects between different emission levels on the variables recorded.
Findings rather indicated that the group of affected persons reacted
differently to the exposure situation itself than healthy persons or
asthmatics independent of the exposure level.
5 | CO N C LU S I O N S
In the present work, we critically reviewed the evidence on the emis-
sion and characterization of particles emitted from LPDs, as well as
the risk assessment and possible health effects due to exposure to
particles. Convincing evidence has shown that LPDs release only
very low amounts of toner constituents during regular function and
use.9,28 Particles emitted into the air primarily consist of condensed,
and therefore re-vaporizable, semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs); the proportion of solid particles has been quantified to
range mostly below 2%.
Risk assessment studies estimated that the contribution of
LPD-emitted particles to the overall particles in typical office and
home scenarios was low compared with background exposure or
other common indoor sources. From an epidemiological or tox-
icological standpoint, the mortality risk to be attributed to LPD
particles is significantly lower than for exposure to other parti-
cles in ambient air. While the technical quality of the measure-
ment data from the cited work is beyond dispute, it has to be kept
in mind that experimental findings from cell culture and animal
studies can often not be directly transferred to real-world settings
and carefully controlled human studies in realistic exposure set-
tings are much needed. Currently, the controlled human exposure
study reported in Karrasch et al99 and Herbig et al100 represents
the most comprehensive and diligent investigation of short-term
health effects of LPD-emitted particles to date. Despite a high
418 | GU et al.
particle concentration throughout an exposure period of more
than one hour, the observed reactions were slight to very slight
and could not be convincingly classified as clinically significant.
Nevertheless, considering other factors such as noise protection,
logistics, and resource-saving, it seems advisable to make printers
accessible to many users within a network and to install them in
well-ventilated separate rooms.
Regarding measurements in real-world settings, measured par-
ticles are always a mixture of emissions from LPDs and a variety
of other sources that have to be taken into account. Therefore,
careful background and control group measurements are required.
Particularly in photocopy centers, the assessments may be further
complicated by the fact that many devices are positioned closely
next to each other in a confined space; potentially inadequate
maintenance and improper user behavior can often be added to
the situation. Faulty copies usually remain in the room, and the
toner can be separated from the paper even under slight mechan-
ical stress. At home and office workplaces, users may barely come
into contact with toner constituents. Additional factors may in-
clude inadequate ventilation and poor outdoor air quality, for ex-
ample, in large cities.
From a practical point of view, improvement of air quality even in
photocopy centers can be achieved with simple logistics, specifically
with respect to ventilation101 and the work of Martin et al61 offers
adequate approaches. In their study, the need for better exposure
control in copy centers became apparent and the authors suggest
the installation of filtration systems, local exhaust ventilation, enclo-
sures, and general exhaust ventilation.
In principle, the concept of applying low-cost sensors for moni-
toring the indoor air quality in photocopy centers regarding gaseous
and particulate matter is promising.102 However, as pointed out by
Karagulian et al,103 the current performance of many low-cost sen-
sors measuring particulate matter is still very poor, which may result
in misleading conclusions.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
The study is supported by Fraunhofer WKI internal funding.
ORCID
Stefan Karrasch https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9807-2915
Tunga Salthammer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2370-8664
REFERENCES
1. Godish T. Sick Buildings: Definition, Diagnosis and Mitigation. Boca
Raton: Lewis Publishers; 1995.
2. Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Baik YK, Clausen G, Fanger PO. Perceived
air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and produc-
tivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor Air.
1999;9:165-179.
3. Wolkoff P. Indoor air pollutants in office environments:
Assessment of comfort, health, and performance. Int J Hyg Environ
Health. 2013;216:371-394.
4. Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Fanger PO. The performance and subjec-
tive responses of call-center operators with new and used supply
air filters at two outdoor air supply rates. Indoor Air. 2004;14:7-16.
5. Horemans B, Van Grieken R. Speciation and diurnal variation of
thoracic, fine thoracic and sub-micrometer airborne particulate
matter at naturally ventilated office environments. Atmos Environ.
2010;44:1497-1505.
6. Bakò-Birò Z, Wargocki P, Weschler CJ, Fanger PO. Effects of pollu-
tion from personal computers on perceived air quality, SBS symp-
toms and productivity in offices. Indoor Air. 2004;14:178-187.
7. Brown SK. Assessment of pollutant emissions from dry-process
photocopiers. Indoor Air. 1999;9:259-267.
8. Leovic KW, Sheldon LS, Whitaker DA, Hetes RG, Calcagni JA,
Baskir JN. Measurement of indoor air emissions from dry-process
photocopy machines. J Air Waste Manage. 1996;46:821-829.
9. Barthel M, Pedan V, Hahn O, et al. XRF-analysis of fine and ul-
trafine particles emitted from laser printing devices. Environ Sci
Technol. 2011;45:7819-7825.
10. Salthammer T, Schripp T, Uhde E, Wensing M. Aerosols generated
by hardcopy devices and other electrical appliances. Environ Pollut.
2012;169:167-174.
11. Schripp T, Wensing M. Emission of VOCs and SVOCs from elec-
tronic devices and office equipment. In: Salthammer T, Uhde E,
eds. Organic Indoor Air Pollutants, 2nd edn. Weinheim: WILEY-
VCH; 2009:405-430.
12. Sung G, Ha S, Kwon SB, Kim T. Reduction of ultrafine particles
emission from office laser printers. J Aerosol Sci. 2017;103:15-23.
13. Wang ZM, Wagner J, Wall S. Characterization of laser printer
nanoparticle and VOC emissions, formation mechanisms,
and strategies to reduce airborne exposures. Aerosol Sci Tech.
2011;45:1060-1068.
14. Pirela SV, Pyrgiotakis G, Bello D, Thomas T, Castranova V,
Demokritou P. Development and characterization of an exposure
platform suitable for physico-chemical, morphological and toxico-
logical characterization of printer-emitted particles (PEPs). Inhal
Toxicol. 2014;26:400-408.
15. Pirela SV, Sotiriou GA, Bello D, et al. Consumer exposures to laser
printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles: A case study of life-cy-
cle implications from nano-enabled products. Nanotoxicology.
2015;9:760-768.
16. Wallace L, Ott W. Personal exposure to ultrafine particles. J Expo
Sci Env Epid. 2011;21:20-30.
17. Fromme H, Diemer J, Dietrich S, et al. Chemical and morphological
properties of particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) in school classrooms
and outdoor air. Atmos Environ. 2008;42:6597-6605.
18. Hassanvand MS, Naddafi K, Faridi S, et al. Indoor/outdoor rela-
tionships of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 mass concentrations and their
water-soluble ions in a retirement home and a school dormitory.
Atmos Environ. 2014;82:375-382.
19. Wang X, Bi X, Sheng G, Fu J. Hospital indoor PM10/PM2.5 and
associated trace elements in Guangzhou. China. Sci Total Environ.
2006;366:124-135.
20. Grgic I. Metals in aerosols. In: Colbeck I, ed. Environmental Chemistry
of Aerosols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2008:117-139.
21. Pirela SV, Martin J, Bello D, Demokritou P. Nanoparticle exposures
from nano-enabled toner-based printing equipment and human
health: state of science and future research needs. Crit Rev Toxicol.
2017;47:678-704.
22. Diapouli E, Chaloulakou A, Koutrakis P. Estimating the concentra-
tion of indoor particles of outdoor origin: A review. J Air Waste
Manage. 2013;63:1113-1129.
23. Chen C, Zhao B. Review of relationship between indoor and out-
door particles: I/O ratio, infiltration factor and penetration factor.
Atmos Environ. 2011;45:275-288.
24. Bello D, Martin J, Santeufemio C, et al. Physicochemical and
morphological characterisation of nanoparticles from photo-
copiers: implications for environmental health. Nanotoxicology.
2013;7:989-1003.
GU et al.
25. Holik H. Handbook of Paper and Board. Weinheim: WILEY-VCH;
2013.
26. Turner J, Colbeck I. Physical and chemical properties of atmo-
spheric aerosols. In: Colbeck I, ed. Environmental Chemistry of
Aerosols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2008:1-29.
27. Kagi N, Fujii S, Horiba Y, et al. Indoor air quality for chemical
and ultrafine particle contaminants from printers. Build Environ.
2007;42:1949-1954.
28. Morawska L, He CR, Johnson G, et al. an investigation into the
characteristics and formation mechanisms of particles origi-
nating from the operation of laser printers. Environ Sci Technol.
2009;43:1015-1022.
29. Schripp T, Wensing M, Uhde E, Salthammer T, He C, Morawska L.
Evaluation of ultrafine particle emissions from laser printers using
emission test chambers. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:4338-4343.
30. Wensing M, Schripp T, Uhde E, Salthammer T. Ultra-fine par-
ticles release from hardcopy devices: Sources, real-room mea-
surements and efficiency of filter accessories. Sci Total Environ.
2008;407:418-427.
31. Serfozo N, Ondracek J, Glytsos T, Lazaridis M. Evaluation of
nanoparticle emissions from a laser printer in an experimental
chamber and estimation of the human particle dose. Environ Sci
Pollut R. 2018;25:13103-13117.
32. Zhao BT. Ultrafine aerosol particles from laser printing process: re-
sponse relationship between operating parameters and emission
characteristics. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2017;17:2139-2151.
33. Lee SC, Lam S, Fai HK. Characterization of VOCs, ozone, and PM10
emissions from office equipment in an environmental chamber.
Build Environ. 2001;36:837-842.
34. He C, Morawska L, Taplin L. Particle emission characteristics of
office printers. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:6039-6045.
35. Schripp T, Mulakampilly SJ, Delius W, et al. Comparison of ultraf-
ine particle release from hardcopy devices in emission test cham-
bers and office rooms. Gefahrst Reinh Luft. 2009;69:71-76.
36. Scungio M, Vitanza T, Stabile L, Buonanno G, Morawska L.
Characterization of particle emission from laser printers. Sci Total
Environ. 2017;586:623-630.
37. DE-UZ-205. Test Method for the Determination of Emissions from
Hardcopy Devices within the Award of the Blue Angel Ecolabel for
Equipment with Printing Function according to DE-UZ-205, Appendix
S-M. Berlin: Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing;
2017.
38. He CR, Morawska L, Wang H, et al. Quantification of the relation-
ship between fuser roller temperature and laser printer emissions.
J Aerosol Sci. 2010;41:523-530.
39. Wensing M, Delius W, Uhde E, et al. Ultra-fine particles (UFP) from laser
printers - influence of the fuser unit temperature on the particle forma-
tion. Syracuse, NY: Proceedings of Healthy Buildings. International
Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate; 2009. Paper ID 172.
40. Park H, Park S. New approaches to characterize and reduce the
number of ultrafine particles from a laser printer. J Imaging Sci
Techn. 2013;57:10502-1-10502-7.
41. Wang DW, Guo H, He CR. An investigation on particle emission
from a new laser printer using an environmental chamber. Indoor
Built Environ. 2017;26:1144-1154.
42. Shi XF, Chen R, Huo LL, et al. Evaluation of nanoparticles emit-
ted from printers in a clean chamber, a copy center and office
rooms: health risks of indoor air quality. J Nanosci Nanotechno.
2015;15:9554-9564.
43. Byeon JH, Kim JW. Particle emission from laser printers with dif-
ferent printing speeds. Atmos Environ. 2012;54:272-276.
44. Morawska L, Xiu M, He C, et al. Particle emissions from laser print-
ers: have they decreased? Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2019;6:300-305.
45. Johnson GR, Fletcher C, Meyer N, Modini R, Ristovski ZD. A robust,
portable H-TDMA for field use. J Aerosol Sci. 2008;39:850-861.
| 419
46. Hinds WC. Aerosol Technology, 2nd edn. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons; 1999.
47. Jayaratne ER, Ling X, He C, Morawska L. Monitoring charged
particle and ion emissions from a laser printer. J Electrostat.
2012;70:333-338.
48. Wang H, He CR, Morawska L, McGarry P, Johnson G. Ozone-
initiated particle formation, particle aging, and precursors in a
laser printer. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:704-712.
49. Salonen H, Salthammer T, Morawska L. Human exposure to
ozone in school and office indoor environments. Environ Int.
2018;119:503-514.
50. Morrison G. Chemical reactions among indoor pollutants. In:
Lazaridis M, Colbeck I, eds. Human Exposure to Pollutants via dermal
Absorption and Inhalation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer;
2010:73-96.
51. Betha R, Selvam V, Blake DR, Balasubramanian R. Emission
characteristics of ultrafine particles and volatile organic com-
pounds in a commercial printing center. J Air Waste Manage.
2011;61:1093-1101.
52. McGarry P, Morawska L, He CR, et al. Exposure to particles from
laser printers operating within office workplaces. Environ Sci
Technol. 2011;45:6444-6452.
53. Fiedler J, Kura J, Moriske HJ, Pietsch A. Release of fine and ultra-
fine particles from laser printers on real room conditions. Gefahrst
Reinhalt Luft. 2009;69:77-82.
54. Chatoutsidou SE, Serfozo N, Glytsos T, Lazaridis M. Multi-zone
measurement of particle concentrations in a HVAC building with
massive printer emissions: influence of human occupation and par-
ticle transport indoors. Air Qual Atmos Hlth. 2017;10:679-693.
55. Tang T, Hurrass J, Gminski R, Mersch-Sundermann V. Fine and ul-
trafine particles emitted from laser printers as indoor air contami-
nants in German offices. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2012;19:3840-3849.
56. Ch SD, Gokhale S. Monitoring and assessment of O3 and PM1
in the microenvironment of a workplace. Environ Model Assess.
2015;20:521-534.
57. Lee CW, Hsu DJ. Measurements of fine and ultrafine parti-
cles formation in photocopy centers in Taiwan. Atmos Environ.
2007;41:6598-6609.
58. Martin J, Bello D, Bunker K, et al. Occupational exposure to
nanoparticles at commercial photocopy centers. J Hazard Mater.
2015;298:351-360.
59. Grgic I, Bratec J, Rogac MB. Indoor nanoparticles measurements in
workplace environment: the case of printing and photocopy cen-
ter. Acta Chim Slov. 2016;63:327-334.
60. Jamen S, Abdullah AM. Ultrafine particles measurement in
printing industry across West Malaysia. Int J Eng Technol (UAE).
2018;7:68-72.
61. Martin J, Demokritou P, Woskie S, Bello D. Indoor air quality in
photocopy centers, nanoparticle exposures at photocopy work-
stations, and the need for exposure controls. Ann Work Expos Heal.
2017;61:110-122.
62. Khatri M, Bello D, Pal AK, et al. Toxicological effects of PM 0.25-2.0
particles collected from a photocopy center in three human cell
lines. Inhal Toxicol. 2013;25:621-632.
63. Pirela S, Molina R, Watson C, et al. Effects of copy center particles
on the lungs: a toxicological characterization using a Balb/c mouse
model. Inhal Toxicol. 2013;25:498-508.
64. Geller MD, Chang M, Sioutas C, Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ. Indoor/
outdoor relationship and chemical composition of fine and
coarse particles in the southern California deserts. Atmos Environ.
2002;36:1099-1110.
65. Gminski R, Mersch-Sundermann V. Evaluation of effects caused by
exposure to toner dusts and emissions of laser printers and photo-
copiers to human health: current state of knowledge. Umweltmed
Forsch Prax. 2006;11:269-300.
420 | GU et al.
66. Jungnickel F, Wildermann R, Maciej B, Fischer H. Analysis of
toners and their health assessment. Umweltmed Forsch Prax.
2006;11:319-323.
67. Palm J. Research on reactions of incompatibility to the toner dust
of laser printers. Umweltmed Forsch Prax. 2006;11:324-328.
68. Hänninen O, Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Loh M, et al. Occupational and
consumer risk estimates for nanoparticles emitted by laser print-
ers. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12:91-99.
69. Seinfeld JH, Pandis SN. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
70. Theegarten D, Boukercha S, Philippou S, Anhenn O. Submesothelial
deposition of carbon nanoparticles after toner exposition: Case
report. Diagn Pathol. 2010;5:1-4.
71. Wensing M, Schripp T, Uhde E, Salthammer T. ,A comment on
'Theegarten et al.: Submesothelial deposition of carbon nanopar-
ticles after toner exposition: Case report. Diagnostic Pathology
2010, 5:77'. Diagn Pathol. 2011;6:20.
72. Gminski R, Decker K, Heinz C, et al. Genotoxic effects of three
selected black toner powders and their dimethyl sulfoxide extracts
in cultured human epithelial A549 lung cells in vitro. Environ Mol
Mutagen. 2011;52:296-309.
73. Könczöl M, Weiß A, Gminski R, Merfort I, Mersch-Sundermann
V. Oxidative stress and inflammatory response to printer
toner particles in human epithelial A549 lung cells. Toxicol Lett.
2013;216:171-180.
74. Morimoto Y, Oyabu T, Horie M, et al. Pulmonary toxicity of printer
toner following inhalation and intratracheal instillation. Inhal
Toxicol. 2013;25:679-690.
75. Tang T, Gminski R, Konczol M, Modest C, Armbruster B, Mersch-
Sundermann V. Investigations on cytotoxic and genotoxic ef-
fects of laser printer emissions in human epithelial A549 lung
cells using an air/liquid exposure system. Environ Mol Mutagen.
2012;53:125-135.
76. Khatri M, Bello D, Pal AK, et al. Evaluation of cytotoxic, genotoxic
and inflammatory responses of nanoparticles from photocopiers
in three human cell lines. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2013;10:1-22.
77. Sisler JD, Pirela SV, Friend S, et al. Small airway epithelial cells
exposure to printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles in-
duces cellular effects on human microvascular endothelial
cells in an alveolar-capillary co-culture model. Nanotoxicology.
2015;9:769-779.
78. Lu X, Miousse IR, Pirela SV, Melnyk S, Koturbash I, Demokritou P.
Short-term exposure to engineered nanomaterials affects cellular
epigenome. Nanotoxicology. 2016;10:140-150.
79. Lu X, Miousse IR, Pirela SV, et al. In vivo epigenetic effects induced
by engineered nanomaterials: A case study of copper oxide and
laser printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology.
2016;10:629-639.
80. Oberdörster G, Kuhlbusch TAJ. In vivo effects: Methodologies and
biokinetics of inhaled nanomaterials. NanoImpact. 2018;10:38-60.
81. Khatri M, Bello D, Gaines P, et al. Nanoparticles from photocopiers
induce oxidative stress and upper respiratory tract inflammation in
healthy volunteers. Nanotoxicology. 2013;7:1014-1027.
82. Mersch-Sundermann V, Ebner W, Hurraß J, Gminski R. Effect of
laser printer emission exposure on human health – Investigation
of six patients including ESR measurements. Toxicol Lett.
2011;205:S223.
83. Jörres RA, Karrasch S, Nowak D, Ochmann U. Laserdrucker
und Kopierer. In: Schmitz-Spanke S, Nesseler T, Letzel S, Nowak
D, eds. Umweltmedizin. Landsberg am Lech: Ecomed Medizin;
2017:152-162.
84. Elango N, Kasi V, Vembhu B, Poornima JG. Chronic exposure to
emissions from photocopiers in copy shops causes oxidative stress
and systematic inflammation among photocopier operators in
India. Environ Health. 2013;12:78.
85. Khatri M, Bello D, Martin J, et al. Chronic upper airway inflammation
and systemic oxidative stress from nanoparticles in photocopier
operators: Mechanistic insights. NanoImpact. 2017;5:133-145.
86. Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJ. Office work ex-
posures and respiratory and sick building syndrome symptoms.
Occup Environ Med. 2007;64:178-184.
87. Lucas K, Maes M. Molecular mechanisms underpinning laser printer
and photocopier induced symptoms, including chronic fatigue syn-
drome and respiratory tract hyperresponsiveness: pharmacologi-
cal treatment with cinnamon and hydrogen. Neuroendocrinol Lett.
2013;34:723-737.
88. Zhang Y, Demokritou P, Ryan DK, Bello D. Comprehensive as-
sessment of short-lived ROS and H2O2 in laser printer emissions:
assessing the relative contribution of metal oxides and organic
constituents. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:7574-7583.
89. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology:
an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.
Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:823-839.
90. Gadhia PK, Patel D, Solanki KB, Tamakuwala DN, Pithawala
MA. A preliminary cytogenetic and hematological study of
photocopying machine operators. Indian J Occup Environ Med.
2005;9:22-25.
91. Kleinsorge EC, Erben M, Galan MG, Barison C, Gonsebatt
ME, Simoniello MF. Assessment of oxidative status and geno-
toxicity in photocopier operators: A pilot study. Biomarkers.
2011;16:642-648.
92. Su MX, Sun RB, Zhang X, et al. Assessment of the inhalation
risks associated with working in printing rooms: a study on the
staff of eight printing rooms in Beijing. China. Environ Sci Pollut R.
2018;25:17137-17143.
93. Kasi V, Elango N, Ananth S, Vembhu B, Poornima JG. Occupational
exposure to photocopiers and their toners cause genotoxicity.
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2018;37:205-217.
94. Chalbot MCG, Pirela SV, Schifman L, et al. Synergistic effects
of engineered nanoparticles and organics released from laser
printers using nano-enabled toners: potential health implications
from exposures to the emitted organic aerosol. Environ Sci-Nano.
2017;4:2144-2156.
95. Gurjar BR, Butler TM, Lawrence MG, Lelieveld J. Evaluation
of emissions and air quality in megacities. Atmos Environ.
2008;42:1593-1606.
96. Géhin E, Ramalho O, Kirchner S. Size distribution and emission rate
measurement of fine and ultrafine particle from indoor human ac-
tivities. Atmos Environ. 2008;42:8341-8352.
97. Destaillats H, Maddalena RL, Singer BC, Hodgson AT, McKone
TE. Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A re-
view of reported data and information needs. Atmos Environ.
2008;42:1371-1388.
98. Schripp T, Kirsch I, Salthammer T. Characterization of par-
ticle emission from household appliances. Sci Total Environ.
2011;409:2534-2540.
99. Karrasch S, Simon M, Herbig B, et al. Health effects of laser
printer emissions: a controlled exposure study. Indoor Air.
2017;27:753-765.
100. Herbig B, Jorres RA, Schierl R, et al. Psychological and cognitive
effects of laser printer emissions: A controlled exposure study.
Indoor Air. 2018;28:112-124.
101. Sundell J, Levin H, Nazaroff WW, et al. Ventilation rates and
health: multidisciplinary review of the scientific literature. Indoor
Air. 2011;21:191-204.
102. Kumar P, Skouloudis AN, Bell M, et al. Real-time sensors for indoor
air monitoring and challenges ahead in deploying them to urban
buildings. Sci Total Environ. 2016;560–561:150-159.
103. Karagulian F, Gerboles M, Barbiere M, Kotsev A, Lagler F,
Borowiak A. Review of sensors for air quality monitoring, EUR 29826
GU et al.
EN. Luxembourg, Germany: Publications Office of the European
Union; 2019.
104. Nies E, Blome H, Bruggemann-Prieshoff H. Characterization of
coloured toner powders and emissions from colour photocopiers/
colour laser printers. Gefahrst Reinhalt Luft. 2000;60:435-441.
105. Rockstroh J, Jann O, Wilke O, et al. Investigations of emission
behavelour for laser printers and copiers - Development of a test
method. Materialprüfung. 2004;46(9):465-471.
106. Jann O, Rockstroh J, Wilke O. Influence of emissions from hardcopy
devices to indoor air quality. Beijing, China: Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate.
Tsinghua University Press; 2005:2123-2128.
107. Kim SY, Kim Y, Byeon JH, Lee DY, Hwang J. Emission of submicron
aerosol particles in operating a laser beam printer. Int J Precis Eng
Man. 2009;10:33-36.
108. Wensing M, Delius W, Omelan A, et al. Ultra-fine particles (UFP)
from laser printers: chemical and physical characterization. Syracuse,
NY: Proceedings of Healthy Buildings. International Society of
Indoor Air Quality and Climate; 2009. Paper ID 171.
109. Castellano P, Canepari S, Ferrante R, L'Episcopo N. Multiparametric
approach for an exemplary study of laser printer emissions.
J Environ Monitor. 2012;14:446-454.
110. Seeger S. Investigation of the efficiency of some protective filters
against particle emissions from laser printing devices. Gefahrst
Reinhalt Luft. 2012;72:198-202.
111. Varnskuhler B, Fittschen UEA, Georg H, Goebel A, Wesselmann
M. Characterization of laser printer emissions in a test chamber
and in real-life use. Gefahrst Reinhalt Luft. 2014;74:245-250.
112. Koivisto AJ, Hussein T, Niemela R, Tuomi T, Hameri K. Impact of
particle emissions of new laser printers on modeled office room.
Atmos Environ. 2010;44:2140-2146.
113. Gemenetzis P, Moussas P, Arditsoglou A, Samara C. Mass concen-
tration and elemental composition of indoor PM2.5 and PM10 in
university rooms in Thessaloniki, northern Greece. Atmos Environ.
2006;40:3195-3206.
114. Valuntaite V, Girgždiene R. Variation of ozone and aerosol particle
numerical concentrations on the working premises under different
microclimatic parameters. J Environ Eng Landsc. 2008;16:135-142.
115. Yin ZQ, Lin JZ, Yu MZ. FMPS measurement of nanoparticle pollut-
ant in office air. In: Tan J, Wen X, eds. 6th International Symposium
on Precision Engineering Measurements and Instrumentation.
Hangzhou, China: SPIE Proceedings 7544, Society of Photo-
Optical Instrumentation Engineers; 2010:. Paper ID 754466.
116. Saraga D, Pateraki S, Papadopoulos A, Vasilakos C, Maggos T.
Studying the indoor air quality in three non-residential environ-
ments of different use: A museum, a printery industry and an of-
fice. Build Environ. 2011;46:2333-2341.
| 421
117. Chatoutsidou SE, Ondracek J, Tesar O, Torseth K, Zdimal V,
Lazaridis M. Indoor/outdoor particulate matter number and mass
concentration in modern offices. Build Environ. 2015;92:462-474.
118. Szigeti T, Dunster C, Cattaneo A, et al. Spatial and temporal vari-
ation of particulate matter characteristics within office buildings
- The OFFICAIR study. Sci Total Environ. 2017;587:59-67.
119. Vicente ED, Ribeiro JP, Custodio D, Alves CA. Assessment of
the indoor air quality in copy centres at Aveiro. Portugal. Air Qual
Atmos Hlth. 2017;10:117-127.
120. Voliotis A, Karali I, Kouras A, Samara C. Fine and ultrafine parti-
cle doses in the respiratory tract from digital printing operations.
Environ Sci Pollut R. 2017;24:3027-3037.
121. Goud KI, Shankarapppa K, Vijayashree B, Rao KP, Ahuja YR. DNA
damage and repair studies in individuals working with photocopy-
ing machines. Int J Hum Genet. 2001;1:139-143.
122. Balakrishnan M, Das A. Chromosomal aberration of workers oc-
cupationally exposed to photocopying machines in Sulur, South
India. Int J Pharma Bio Sci. 2010;1:303-307.
123. Butt AI, Shaams SB, Ghauri M, Shahzad K, Jaffery MH. Study of
physical, chemical and ergonomic occupational hazards faced by
photocopy machine operators. Life Sci J. 2014;11:370-381.
124. Awodele O, Akindele AJ, Adebowale GO, Adeyemi OO. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon, haematological and oxidative stress levels
in commercial photocopier operators in Lagos, Nigeria. Ghana Med
J. 2015;49:37-43.
125. Karimi A, Eslamizad S, Mostafaee M, Momeni Z, Ziafati F,
Mohammadi S. Restrictive pattern of pulmonary symptoms among
photocopy and printing workers: a retrospective cohort study. J
Res Health Sci. 2016;16:81-84.
126. D'Alessandro A, Waldburg N, Boeckelmann I, Schreiber J.
Coughing from copiers? Workplace induced chronic cough after
exposure to laser printer exhaust. J Allergy Ther. 2013;4:1000154.
127. Dutta U, Deka M. Case studies on the risk assessment of hazard-
ous effect of photocopier machine in Guwahati city, India. Clarion.
2012;1:101-113.
128. Shin N, Velmurugan K, Su C, Bauer AK, Tsai CSJ. Assessment of
fine particles released during paper printing and shredding pro-
cesses. Environ Sci: Process Impacts. 2019;21:1342-1352.
How to cite this article: Gu J, Karrasch S, Salthammer T.
Review of the characteristics and possible health effects of
particles emitted from laser printing devices. Indoor Air.
2020;30:396–421. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12646​