<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/3/13 7:31 AM, Daniel K. Young
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:515C3D27.3030402@entomology.wisc.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
I was intrigued by Mark O'Brien's comment (Hi Mark)! I have
learned (and taught) just the opposite: do NOT use inkjet &
bubblejet printers because the letters readily dissolve in EtOH
(and I've witnessed that). In the case of simply xeroxed labels,
the letters readily life off the paper. As for laser printers, it
has been my experience (and, alas, I'm old enough to have had a
lot of experience) that as long as the heat is sufficient, the
plasticized carbon will generally NOT lift off the paper. I am
looking at EtOH laser-printed labels that were printed more than
25 years ago and have been in 80% EtOH since - they look "good as
new." <br>
</blockquote>
Whenever this topic comes up, I hasten to remind people that (1) the
same printer using different paper can give wildly different
results, and (2) there are virtually no hard "longevity" data (as in
controlled experiments) for different combinations of printers and
paper. As such, as a community we are confronted mostly with
anecdotal data, which may (as in the case above) appear to be in
conflict, when in fact both sides may be correct. I have
laser-writer labels produced at KU in 1990 that are sitting in
ethanol and are all perfectly fine today, while labels from that
exact same printer but produced one month later on a different batch
of paper had the letters float off the instant they touched the
ethanol. My point is that unless a person making a recommendation
can tell you the EXACT printer they used, and the EXACT paper they
used, AND how those labels have held up over a span of years, then
you can't assume that their recommendation is trustworthy.<br>
<br>
Another example, which folks like Andy should find interesting: we
have a Saito thermal printer, identical to the one used by the
insect folks at the AMNH (we got ours based on their
recommendation). Out of curiosity, when we first started making
labels with it, I took a few chunks of test labels and soaked them
in water overnight. The next morning, the surface of the labels had
become somewhat gelatinous with fine visible wrinkling (as if it had
absorbed water), and a moderate bit of friction rubbed all the
printing clean off. Why was I able to achieve such a disastrous
effect so easily, when everyone else seems to swear that
thermal-printed labels are great for wet collections? Well, (1) not
everyone uses a Saito printer (2) maybe water is somehow worse than
ethanol, though since all ethanol solutions contain water, over time
I can't imagine why the same effect shouldn't occur, regardless of
the concentration (3) we had ALSO followed the recommendation of the
people at the AMNH (who swore by the technique) of asking the
manufacturer that the thermal plastic be re-spooled prior to
shipping so what was normally the bottom side of the plastic was on
the *top*. If I had to guess as to why I found that thermal labels
are vulnerable to water when no one else has ever reported any such
thing, I'm tempted to think that point #3 is the source of the
discrepancy (i.e., that thermal plastic is not symmetrical).
However, even if this were the problem, then the BACK sides of
everyone else's thermal labels might be turning gelatinous, and who
knows whether that coating may be rubbing or peeling off and
contaminating their specimens? In our case, we presently use two
inkjet-printed labels for our wet collections, one inside the vial,
and another (identical) taped outside the vial, because we don't
trust ANY labels' archival properties in fluid, and printing
duplicate labels is cheap insurance for little extra labor.<br>
<br>
Again, my point is that we are operating strictly via anecdotes, and
don't have experimental results we can consult for objective
assessments of one technique versus another. If it were possible to
compile all of the observations from people who know ALL of the
variable parameters for their cases, we might have a useful point of
reference; obviously, if anyone knows of such a compilation, a lot
of us would be interested.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>