HP ridicules Queensland study linking laser printer particles to potential health issues

Oh noes, that study claiming that laser printer particles are dangerous is shaping up to be just as contentious as those studies proving that cellphones are/aren't dangerous. As you'll recall, the Queensland University study tested 62 "relatively new" laser printers from Canon, HP, and Toshiba and found 17 to be "high emitters" of potentially dangerous, ultra-fine toner particles. Of these, all but one (a Toshiba model) were manufactured by HP. As you'd expect, HP has issued a formal response courtesy of Tuan Tran, HP's vice president of marketing for supplies. Perhaps predictably after such a damning report, HP's response can be summarized as an attempt to both discredit and mock the research while standing behind the safety of their products. Tuan first ridicules the study by stating "the nature and chemical composition of such particles – whether from a laser printer or from a toaster – cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology." He goes on to say that, "Testing of ultrafine particles is a very new scientific discipline. There are no indications that ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions from laser printing systems are associated with special health risks." HP does agree with the study's assessment that "more testing in this area is needed" and claims to be actively engaged in the process. Since HP's statement came our way via a PR agency and not HP's official news site, we offer you their complete response after the break. While it's tempting to label HP the Big Tobacco of the printer business, don't; it's far too early to jump to such conclusions. Still, with a press release like this, they're not making it easy on anyone.

Below is the response from Tuan Tran, HP's vice president of marketing for supplies, to the Laser Printer Emissions Study released by Queensland University of Technology:

After a preliminary review of the Queensland University of Technology research on particle emission characteristics of office printers, HP does not agree with its conclusion or some of the bold claims the authors have made recently in press reports.

HP stands behind the safety of its products. Testing of ultrafine particles is a very new scientific discipline. There are no indications that ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions from laser printing systems are associated with special health risks. Currently, the nature and chemical composition of such particles – whether from a laser printer or from a toaster – cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology. However, many experts believe that many of the UFPs found in common household and office products are not discrete solid particles, but may be condensation products or small droplets created during thermal processes.

HP agrees more testing in this area is needed, which is why we've been active with two of the world's leading independent authorities on this subject: Air Quality Sciences in the United States and the Wilhelm-Klauditz Institute in Germany.

Vigorous tests are an integral part of HP's research and development and its strict quality-control procedures. HP LaserJet printing systems, original HP print cartridges and papers are tested for dust release and possible material emissions and are compliant with all applicable international health and safety requirements. In addition to meeting or exceeding these guidelines, HP's design criteria for its laser printing systems incorporate guidelines from both the Blue Angel program in Germany and the Greenguard program in the United States.

Based on our own testing, HP knows that many variables can affect the outcome of tests for ultrafine particle emissions. Although HP is not aware of all of the specific methodologies used in the Queensland study, based on what we've seen in the report – as well as our own work in this area – we do not believe there is a link between printer emissions and any public health risk. Specifically, HP does not see an association between printer use by customers and negative health effects for volatile organic compounds, ozone or dust. While we recognize ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles are emitted from printing systems, these levels are consistently below recognized occupational exposure limits.

HP hopes to learn more from the study authors about how products were chosen for the study, how ranges were determined given no standards exist, and many other factors that could have influenced the results.

[shamma banks @ Aug 3rd 2007 8:44AM]

The chemicals we use everyday are the cause of cancer. Just look at all the chemicals we have in our homes.

[Tim @ Aug 3rd 2007 8:54AM]

Anyone wonder who funded the project? Perhaps the generous people from Cannon decided that further research needed to be done into dangerous HP printers. Biggest danger printers are if I tripped over it and hit my head on the edge of the desk.

[John Doe @ Aug 3rd 2007 8:59AM]

Tim you are as big of a douchebag as HP. You CAN'T in any way, shape or form claim this because you can't prove it one way or another. Until you can bring proof that laser printers don't cause health issues I'm going to file idiots like you under the same category as those who say there is no ozone problem in the atmosphere and that the earth is flat as well.

[kjb434 @ Aug 3rd 2007 9:21AM]

John Doe,

You should fall into the category of the same people believing the earth is flat if you truly believe there is an issue with the ozone layer. That hole has been there for millions of years whether we are here or not.

Anyway,

So what about this. If you think a laser printer is the only thing in your life that emits ultra fine particles, you've got issues. You're more likely to have a health issue from entering a public or office bathroom and just breathing in the air.

[Cameron Campbell @ Aug 3rd 2007 9:35AM]

Tim that kind of question makes me wonder if you work for HP.

kjb434, your making up things that John didn't say makes me wonder if you work for HP as well.

Hey, this making things up stuff is fun!

[-_- @ Aug 3rd 2007 9:53AM]

@John Doe:
Who took a crap in your Cheerios?
And until YOU CAN bring proof that laser printers cause health problems, you're the douche bag.

@Cameron Campbell:
I guess you missed kjb434's point about as badly as your spell check missed "your" for "you're".

[Cameron Campbell @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:56AM]

OMG I MADE A TYPO.. YOU'RE RIGHT I'M WRONG.. SO SORRY MASSA.

[John @ Aug 3rd 2007 2:10PM]

@ -_- : Any idiot knows spell check can't say right or wrong for "your" & "you're". They're both spelled correctly; spell check is not a grammar check.

@kjb434: Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. John Doe said nothing of the sort.

What could be the problem with you two? Are your machines incapable of playing Doom?

[Vilemidget @ Aug 10th 2007 1:27PM]

FYI. Canon makes the printer engines for HP.

[Rob @ Aug 3rd 2007 9:05AM]

How typical of a big corporation.
Why would HP take the low road and start ridiculing the study. Instead, HP, could've come up with something more eloquent and say "we're taking the time to read their studies/finding a bit more carefully, and at the present time find ourselves unable to provide a public response we'd be satisfied with. However, we do ensure the public that we have full confidence in the quality and safety of our products."

This clown that came out talking all that garbage should get fired.

[nikster @ Aug 4th 2007 1:11AM]

It's just the standard marketing response a big corporation will put out.

They will deny this is causing any problems right up to the day where they introduce new laser printers with "now does not cause lung cancer" stickers. Well they'll wrap it in marketing speech but you know what I mean.

It's such BS.

[roole @ Aug 3rd 2007 10:48AM]

You say: "Since HP's statement came our way via a PR agency and not HP's official news site......"

You think there's a serious difference between the two?

[R. C. @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:00AM]

THe point was that they were therefore going to post it below, not just a link.

[Andy @ Aug 6th 2007 4:59AM]

...But on the flip side of the coin, laser printers and copiers with corona wires produce ozone -which is good for the big hole isn't it?

[Magallanes @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:28PM]

it's not a good ozone but a nasty one. A good ozone is found in the stratosphere (or you could say, up there) while a bad-guy ozone is found in the troposphere (here, in a office, in the street..).

Ozone is dangerous cause it's a bit corrosive.

[t3k101 @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:04AM]

Sounded to me like an excuse to put the old laser printers to pasture so all the Vista driver issues will just go away.

[MyNameIs @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:30AM]

So much misinformation being said in these threads. I work with this technology and understand the xerographic process. (HP does not know how to respond as they are dumb)

1. Ozone from a copier/printer is not the same as ground level ozone.
2. Toner is a fine particulate that if you do accumulate it in your lungs will have the same effect as black lung which a coal miner can contract.
3. You would have to really be working these toners to get large amounts.
4. If toner was truely safe, why does it burn out motors in regualur vaccuum cleaners HP spin doctors? There are modified vaccuum cleaners with specialized canisters to remove toner.
5. Check the exhaust area for toner particles(wipe with White cloth)as they will show up if venting toner. Most cartridges are a closed system with recycling going on internally so you may not find any.

[Carl M @ Aug 3rd 2007 2:25PM]

Toner burns out vacuum cleaner motors because it's made of carbon, and carbon conducts electricity, resulting in short circuits.

[jeff allan @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:55PM]

The most interesting part of the story isnt the content but the cheesy/funny pic of the guy gagging into his hand. Love it!

[Loonie @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:52AM]

I wish I could say I was surprised.

[thenino85 @ Aug 4th 2007 12:03PM]

Can someone please point out to me where HP "mocked" the study? They gave reasons they believed the study was flawed, but they never actually came out and mocked it.

Yes, yes, I know, HP is a big company and is therefore evil, but having worked in research settings throughout college, I know firsthand that many research labatories will make a mountain out of a molehill if they think it can get them publicity. Money follows publicity, and research labs are so obsessed with money it's scary. Questionable statistics aren't a fluke; they're very often the norm.

[Thomas Ricker @ Aug 3rd 2007 1:09PM]

@thenino85,

Comparing toner particles measuring from 15 to 710 nanometers, or 0.015 to 0.71 micrometers to the particles emitted by a toaster is a bit of a mockery don't you think?

Thomas

[thenino85 @ Aug 4th 2007 12:13PM]

No, it's not. Many items emit ultrafine particles, even common household items. They're simply saying that analyzing ultrafine particles from any source, even from a common household item, is difficult. Our understanding of nature on the scale of nanometers is still very crude. The lab that I mentioned working at was actually a nanoscale science lab. The lab I worked at had a major breakthrough when we constructed a crude nanoscale image of a cowboy. HP are in no way implying that the huge particles emitted by toaster can't be chemically analyzed. Of course they can, and particles on the order of magnitude that we are used to are analyzed in basic chemistry lab courses. I believe that you're taking their comments out of context.

- Will

[Tuan @ Aug 3rd 2007 8:18PM]

Hey just reading thru this Blog and since i was quoted I wanted to clear up a couple of points. At HP, we’re a company that is concerned about health and safety first and foremost. Right now we’re working to better understand the research here and are not discrediting the data itself before we’ve had a chance to talk to the authors. What we are objecting to is drawing conclusion before there is a body of science to support it. Even the researchers themselves agree that since this is a very new area of technology, and there is more testing needed in order to make a determination. I also saw this perspective from Berkeley Lab and thought you might find it interesting, too: http://www.lbl.gov/today/2007/Aug/02-Thu/indoor-air.html.

[Steven Freitas @ Aug 3rd 2007 3:38PM]

The funniest part of all this is that Hp can't give a good answer because it is Canon that makes the laser engine in the printers, not Hp. Which kinda puts the rest of the "facts" in the article into perspective.

[jon @ Aug 5th 2007 9:33AM]

There's a lot of research documenting the detrimental health effects of microscopic airborne particulates. There's a significant, proven correlation between the concentration of particulates and increased incidences of cardio-vascular and pulmonary diseases.

Standards were recently tightened substantially, because it turns out that the smaller the particle the greater its effect - the concern is now with particles at 2.5 microns in size, previously 10 microns. Many of these particles are the result of diesel and auto emissions. This is not visible soot or dust. If you can see it, it's big enough for your lungs to filter it out.

Whether or not laser toner particles behave similarly to combustion emissions, it sounds like you ought to be cautious about use of laser printers until more data is generated.

[R @ Aug 4th 2007 4:22PM]

Health-related aspects of ultrafine and nanoparticle aerosols is my ball of wax. I'm a dumbass in most things in life, but for some reason I like this stuff (it's what I'm getting my Ph.D. in). Here's my take (and I'm looking at the scholarly article this write-up discusses):

1. The title of the Engadget write-up is very, very misleading (borderline dishonest). The cited study doesn't "link laser printer particles to potential health issues." All the study did was identify office printers as a significant (statistically speaking) source of ultrafine particles in a given office setting.

2. In scientific parlance, this paper aids in the formulation of a testable hypothesis. But no statement whatsoever is made in the article that I can find where the authors assert a connection between the observed increases in ultrafine particle counts and health effects. They couldn't do that at this point; it would be intellectually dishonest.

3. The HP dude (who commented above) said "Currently, the nature and chemical composition of such particles – whether from a laser printer or from a toaster – cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology." This is not correct. It sounds as though he is asserting that analytical chemistry in its current state is not able to assess the chemical composition of ultrafine particles. That is not true. Perhaps he needs to revise or make a more nuanced statement if he intended to say something else.

4. The authors used a relative (and somewhat arbitrary) definition of printer emission to categorize printers into "no, low, medium, and high" emissions categories. Although this is somewhat useful for comparisons of particle emissions between printers, it has no meaning in terms of 1) health risk (if any), or 2) when comparing particle emissions to any sort of objective standard. So, although some printers emit "high" amounts of ultrafine particles, that must really be revised to "high compared to other printers we tested."

5. I'm not familiar with any "bold claims" made by the authors of the article in the press relating to their findings, so I have no opinions on those.

6. Based upon the information presented in the journal article, one could run through some scenarios with many (too many) assumptions and do some dose calculations to conjecture whether these particles may or may not be hazardous, but that would probably be irresponsible at this point. Too little is known.

7. Interesting article. If you've access to Environmental Science and Technology, it's recommended.

[Tom Kirwan @ Aug 6th 2007 9:12AM]

Did anyone else note the lack of *any* Lexmark printers on this list?

Hmmmm....curious.....