DK4036_book.

fm Page 1 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

118
Fade Resistance of
Lithographic Inks —
A New Path Forward:
Real World Exposures in
Florida and Arizona
Compared to
Accelerated Xenon Arc
Exposures

Eric T. Everett 118.1 Florida and Arizona Outdoor under Glass

Q-Panel Lab Products
John Lind
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
(GATF)
John Stack
National Institute for Occupational
Safety & Health/National Personal
Protective Technology Laboratory
Exposures...................................................................... 118-2
Test Program • Effect of Seasonal Variation • Arizona
Exposure
118.2 Accelerated Xenon Arc Exposures .............................. 118-5
Why Xenon Arc Testing? • The Test Program • Xenon Arc
Test Results • Relative Humidity • Xenon Arc Exposure
Compared to Florida Outdoor under Glass Exposure
118.3 Conclusions .................................................................. 118-9
Further Reading ...................................................................... 118-10

How long will an ink remain fade resistant under the variety of lighting conditions that it may encounter
during its service life? What is the cost of product failure? What is the price/performance trade-off between
affordability and performance? Is there a quick method to determine which ink is best for a specific
application? This paper answers these questions and provides a useful roadmap for assessing ink durability.
First, results are presented from real world sunlight through window glass exposures in Florida and
Arizona. These internationally recognized test locations provide a “worst case” scenario by exposing inks
to high ultraviolet (UV), high temperatures, and high relative humidity (RH).
Second, test results are presented from laboratory xenon arc exposures performed on an identical set
of lithographic ink specimens. The purpose was twofold: (1) How well do laboratory xenon exposures
correlate with Florida and Arizona exposures in terms of actual degradation and relative rank order? (2)
How much faster are the accelerated laboratory exposures compared to the natural exposures?
This definitive study correlates real world and accelerated laboratory test results for lithographic inks.

118-1

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 2 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

118-2 Coatings Technology Handbook, Third Edition

FIGURE 118.1 Q-Lab weathering research service test facilities research center in Florida and Arizona performed
fade resistance testing of lithographic inks in extreme environments.

118.1 Florida and Arizona Outdoor under Glass Exposures

Sunlight contains short wavelength UV and visible and infrared energy. UV is the primary cause of
degradation in inks, with temperature and moisture as secondary stressors that can accelerate the rate
of degradation.
Lithographic inks may encounter intense sunlight by being placed near a window, or worse yet, placed
on a car dashboard during the summer months, where they will likely encounter high UV, high temper-
atures, and high humidity. Florida and Arizona test locations were chosen for this study because they
provide these extreme environments (Figure 118.1).

118.1.1 Test Program

The Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) selected eight widely used lithographic ink colors: Yellow
#1, Yellow #2, Yellow #3, Magenta, Violet, Orange, Red, and Purple (Figure 118.2). A Little Joe Proofing
Press was used to make prints at typical offset film thicknesses. The inks were printed on a typical coated,
70-lb common paper substrate. Replicates of each ink color were printed for all of the exposures.
The ink test specimens were tested by Q-Lab Weathering Research Service in Florida and Arizona.
They were placed in glass-covered cabinets, angled at 45 degrees south, to maximize exposure of sunlight
filtered through window glass (Figure 118.3). The sunlight through window glass spectrum was chosen
because it best represents worst case indoor lighting conditions.
The ink test specimens were measured for color change before, during, and after exposure. A spectro-
photometer was used to take the color measurements in accordance to ASTM D2244. The total color
change expressed in delta E units was recorded for each specimen.
Florida exposure tests were started at four seasonal intervals: fall equinox (9/21/02), winter solstice
(12/21/02), spring equinox (3/21/03), and summer solstice (6/21/03). The Arizona exposure test was
started in the fall (10/7/02).
Table 118.1 shows the total light energy intensity (i.e., radiant dosage) expressed in megajoules/m2 at
the conclusion of the various outdoor exposure tests, after 90 d in Florida and Arizona.
Figure 118.4 shows the fade resistance performance of the eight ink colors during the Florida fall
exposure. Some ink colors had excellent fade resistance, while other ink colors had very poor fade
resistance. After 90 d, the majority of ink test specimens were severely faded and not useful for analysis.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 3 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks 118-3

FIGURE 118.2 GATF technical staff selected eight representative lithographic ink colors printed on a standard
substrate for fade resistance testing.

FIGURE 118.3 Ink specimens were placed in ASTM G24 glass-covered exposure racks in Florida and Arizona
benchmark locations.

TABLE 118.1 Total Sunlight Outdoor

Exposure Summary MJ/m2 at 300 to 3000 nm
Exposure Days MJ/m2

Florida fall 90 1926.17

Florida winter 90 1541.13
Florida spring 90 1252.54
Florida summer 90 1081.73
Arizona fall 90 1611.20

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 4 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

118-4 Coatings Technology Handbook, Third Edition

FIGURE 118.4 Fade resistance range for eight colors.

However, by 35 d, the inks exhibited a wide range of fade resistance, from excellent to poor. Therefore,
35 d was chosen to evaluate the performance of the inks in the various outdoor exposures.
Figure 118.5 shows the range of durability for the three Yellow ink test specimens in the Florida fall
exposure. Despite being the same color, the three Yellow inks had significant differences in their fade
resistance. Yellow A performed dramatically better than Yellow B or Yellow C. This is because Yellow A
is fade resistant and suitable for fine art reproductions or outdoor applications, while Yellow B and C
are intended for general commercial printing.

FIGURE 118.5 Fade resistance range for one color.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 5 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks 118-5

FIGURE 118.6 Fade resistance correlation for Florida: fall vs. winter.

118.1.2 Effect of Seasonal Variation

Because the natural exposures were only 35 d, the test was repeated at seasonal intervals to determine
the effect of time of year on degradation. The results showed the time of year did not affect the fade
resistance rankings. All seasonal exposures correlated with each other in terms of rank order. However,
there was a difference in the rate of degradation.
In order to quantify the difference in the seasonal rates of degradation, the average delta E (at 35 d)
can be compared. For example, the average delta E value of all the inks in the Florida winter exposure
was 21, while it was 44 for the Florida fall exposure. In this case, the fall exposure was approximately 2
to 1 more severe than the winter exposure. One should not compare absolute values of specimens exposed
at different times of the year since the rate varies by season. Such inconsistency may not play a factor
when using accelerated fade testing equipment.
Figure 118.6 compares the Florida fall (35 d) and winter (45 d) exposures. There was perfect rank
order correlation between the two exposures.
Figure 118.7 compares Florida winter (45 d) and. Florida summer (35 d). There was perfect rank order
(1.0) between the two seasonal exposures.

118.1.3 Arizona Exposure

The Arizona exposures correlated well with the Florida exposures. The Arizona exposures indicate that
fast test results were obtained in the same time period (35 d) as the Florida exposures. Figure 118.8
compares Arizona and Florida at 35 d.
As shown in Table 118.2, rank order correlation values were all 0.90 and above for all of the outdoor
exposures.

118.2 Accelerated Xenon Arc Exposures

Accelerated laboratory xenon arc exposures were performed on an identical set of lithographic ink
specimens. As noted earlier, the goals were twofold: (1) How well did the lab exposures mimic actual

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 6 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

118-6 Coatings Technology Handbook, Third Edition

FIGURE 118.7 Fade resistance correlation for Florida: winter vs. summer.

FIGURE 118.8 Fade resistance correlation: Florida: vs. Arizona.

TABLE 118.2 Rank Order Correlation Matrix

Florida Summer Florida Fall Florida Winter Florida Spring Arizona Fall

Florida Summer — 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.90

Florida Fall 0.98 — 1.0 0.95 0.98
Florida Winter 0.93 1.0 — 0.97 0.96
Florida Spring 0.98 0.95 0.97 — 0.93
Arizona Fall 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.93 —

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 7 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks 118-7

FIGURE 118.9 Q-Sun with window glass filter vs. sunlight through window glass.

real world exposures with regard to their actual degradation mode and relative rank order? (2) How
much faster were the lab exposures compared to the natural exposures?

118.2.1 Why Xenon Arc Testing?

Historically, the inks industry has used accelerated laboratory tests to get fast results. Xenon arc testers
are widely used because they provide fast results by accelerating critical environmental stresses such as
light spectrum, light intensity, RH, and temperature.
For most indoor products, direct sunlight coming through the window is the most severe indoor
lighting condition. A recent Kodak study concluded that indirect, window-filtered daylight dominates
the indoor lighting environment in homes (Bugner, LaBarca et. al, 2003). Consequently, this GATF/Q-
Panel study used Q-Sun xenon testers equipped with “window glass filters” to achieve an appropriate
spectrum (Figure 118.9).

118.2.2 The Test Program

GATF and Q-Panel’s Q-Lab Weathering Research Service tested ink specimens in Q-Sun Xenon Test
Chambers (Figure 118.10). One xenon tester was a small “tabletop” unit without RH control (Xe-1),
while the other was a full-sized, full-featured xenon tester with precise control of RH (Xe-3H). Expo-
sures were performed in these different xenon arc models to see if repeatable results could be achieved
(Table 118.3).

118.2.3 Xenon Arc Test Results

After 10 d, both the tabletop xenon arc and full-featured xenon arc discriminated the good performing
inks from bad performing inks. Figure 118.11 shows the fade resistance performance of the eight ink
colors in the tabletop xenon arc test apparatus.

118.2.4 Relative Humidity

To determine the effect of RH, the inks were exposed in a xenon arc that controlled RH at 50% (Q-Sun
Xe-3-H) and another xenon arc where the effective RH was approximately 15% (Q-Sun Xe-1). Figure

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 8 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

FIGURE 118.10 GATF and Q-Lab tested inks in Q-Sun Xenon Test Chambers.

TABLE 118.3 Xenon Arc Exposure Test Conditions

Q-Sun Xenon (Xe-1 and Xe-3H)
ASTM D3424, Method 3
Window Glass Filter
Irradiance Level: 0.55 W/m2/nm at 340 nm
RH: Xe-1 Effective RH = 15%
Xe-3 RH = 50%
Exposure Cycle: Continuous Light at 63 ± 3°C (145 ± 5°F)
Test Duration: 31 d
Total Radiant Exposure = 1473 kJ/m2 at 340 nm

FIGURE 118.11 Q-Sun fade resistance range.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 9 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks 118-9

FIGURE 118.12 Effect of relative humidity delta E.

118.12 compares the exposures after 10 d. There was excellent correlation. Control of RH made very
little difference for these particular inks.

118.2.5 Xenon Arc Exposure Compared to Florida Outdoor under

Glass Exposure
The outdoor under glass exposures established a benchmark for fade resistance testing of inks in the
extreme environments of Florida and Arizona. Next, the xenon arc exposures were compared to the
outdoor benchmark data. Figure 118.13 compares the xenon exposure at 10 d to the Florida under glass
exposure at 35 d. Although the numerical results were not identical, the results show excellent rank order
correlation between the two exposures. In this comparison, the xenon arc exposure at 10 d was approx-
imately equivalent to 35 d in Florida. For this particular set of test specimens, the xenon arc exposure
provided an acceleration factor of almost 4 to 1.
As shown in Table 118.4, rank order values for xenon arc and outdoor exposures were all very good.

118.3 Conclusions
1. The Florida and Arizona outdoor under glass exposures provided an extreme environment and
quickly separated inks with excellent fade resistance from inks with poor fade resistance.
2. All outdoor exposures correlated with each other.
3. All outdoor exposures were fast and effective. In 35 d, the relative durability of all ink specimens
was determined.
4. In this series of tests, the time of year did not make a difference in ranking performance of inks.
Seasonal variability made a difference only in the speed of degradation.
5. Outdoor exposures are highly useful for fade resistance testing of any ink. It is recommended that
an ink be tested on a variety of paper substrates since it has been reported (Tobias and Everett,
2002) that the substrate on which an ink is printed on may also affect its stability.
6. Like the Florida and Arizona outdoor under glass exposures, the xenon arc exposures separated
the inks with good fade resistance from the inks with poor fade resistance. Although no accelerated
lab test can replace actual real world exposures, the xenon arc exposures correlated very well with
the established outdoor exposure benchmark data.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 10 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

118-10 Coatings Technology Handbook, Third Edition

FIGURE 118.13 Florida (35 d) vs. Q-Sun (10 d) delta E.

TABLE 118.4 Rank Order Correlation Matrix

Florida Summer Florida Fall Florida Winter Florida Spring Arizona Fall
Q-Sun Xenon 35 d 35 d 35 d 35 d 35 d

Q-Sun Xenon — 0.98 0.97 0.83 0.95 0.88

Florida Summer 0.98 — 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.90
Florida Fall 0.97 0.98 — 1.0 0.95 0.98
Florida Winter 0.83 0.93 1.0 — 0.97 0.96
Florida Spring 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.97 — 0.93
Arizona Fall 0.88 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.93 —

7. The tabletop xenon arc tester (Q-Sun Xe-1) provided the same test results as the full-featured
xenon tester (Q-Sun Xe-3-H). For this particular study, RH did not make a noticeable difference
in the test results.
8. The xenon arc exposures were quick. In only 10 d, the xenon arc reproduced 35 d of Florida under
glass exposure. Depending upon the time of the year, the acceleration factor ranged from about
4 to 1 to almost 7 to 1. However, a word of caution: these acceleration factors may not be valid
for other sets of inks.

Further Reading
ASTM D2244, Test Method for Calculation of Color Differences from Instrumentally Measured Color
Coordinates.
ASTM D3424, Standard Test Methods for Evaluating the Relative Lightfastness and Weatherability of
Printed Matter.
ASTM G24, Standard Practice for Conducting Exposures to Daylight Filtered through Glass.
ASTM G151. Standard Practice for Exposing Nonmetallic Materials in Accelerated Test Devices That Use
Laboratory Light Sources.
ASTM G155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetallic
Materials.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DK4036_book.fm Page 11 Monday, April 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Fade Resistance of Lithographic Inks 118-11

Bugner, Douglas, Joseph LaBarca et. al, “Survey of Environmental Conditions Relative to Display of
Photographs in Consumer Homes,” IS&T Publications, 2003.
Lucas, Julie, “Keep Your True Colors: Lightfastness and Weathering Testing,” GATF World, May/June 2001.
Tobias, Russell H. and Eric T. Everett, “Lightfastness Studies of Water-Based Inkjet Inks on Coated and
Uncoated Papers,” IS&T Publications, 2002.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC