Author: [Bruce Zhou]
Affiliation: [Jota Machinery]
Corresponding Author: [jotamachinery@gmail.com]

Abstract

Bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor, has long been the dominant color developer in thermal paper receipts. Regulatory actions in the EU led to a gradual phase-out of BPA in such materials, prompting the market to adopt various chemical substitutes. This paper analyzes a three-year market study of 311 thermal receipts collected in Germany between 2015 and 2017, evaluating the presence, concentrations, and migration potential of BPA and its alternatives. Findings reveal that BPA remained the most prevalent compound throughout the period, though the phenol-free substitute Pergafast® 201 (PF201) gained substantial market share. Other alternatives such as Bisphenol S (BPS), D-8, and a urea-urethane (UU) compound appeared less frequently. The study also investigates degradation behavior, sensitizer usage, and release kinetics, underscoring the complexity and public health relevance of chemical substitutions in consumer-facing materials.

BPA and Alternatives in German Receipts (2015–2017)

Keywords

Bisphenol A (BPA); Thermal Paper; Pergafast® 201; Bisphenol Substitutes; Chemical Migration; Endocrine Disruptors; Consumer Safety; Regulatory Toxicology

1. Introduction

Bisphenol A (BPA) is widely used as a color developer in thermal printing applications such as receipts, event tickets, and labels. It acts as a proton donor in the thermal reaction system, producing color when heated. BPA’s physicochemical properties—acidity, stability, and cost-effectiveness—have made it an industry standard for decades. However, due to its endocrine-disrupting properties and potential to interfere with hormone receptors, BPA has come under increasing regulatory scrutiny. In 2016, the European Union enacted Regulation (EU) 2016/2235, limiting BPA to 0.02 wt% in thermal paper by January 2020, effectively banning its continued use in this context.

This paper presents a detailed review of the German thermal paper market between 2015 and 2017, based on the authoritative study by Eckardt and Simat (2017). The analysis assesses the ongoing transition from BPA to its alternatives, examines concentration trends, and evaluates the potential for human exposure via skin contact.

2. Materials and Methods

The study sampled 311 thermal paper receipts randomly collected in Germany across three years: 114 in 2015, 98 in 2016, and 99 in 2017. The chemical analysis was conducted using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode-Array Detection (HPLC-DAD). Detected substances were quantified to determine prevalence and concentration of BPA and its substitutes.

Release experiments were also conducted to assess dermal exposure potential using both dry and moistened finger contact. Additionally, a standardized color fastness test (DIN EN 646) was employed to evaluate the migration of developers under defined conditions.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Prevalence of Developers

BPA remained the dominant color developer in thermal papers across all three years:

  • 2015: 48.2% of samples
  • 2016: 46.9%
  • 2017: 52.5%

The increasing share in 2017 indicates a delay in industry-wide phase-out, despite looming regulation.

Pergafast® 201 (PF201) emerged as the most popular alternative:

  • 2015: 34.2%
  • 2016: 33.7%
  • 2017: 40.4%

Its phenol-free structure and absence of estrogenic activity made it a preferable replacement from a toxicological standpoint.

Bisphenol S (BPS), a structural analog of BPA, was detected in a declining fraction:

  • 2015: 11.4%
  • 2016: 9.2%
  • 2017: 6.1%

Other compounds such as D-8 (a sulfone derivative) and UU (urea-urethane) appeared infrequently, suggesting limited market adoption.

3.2 Concentrations

The concentration of developers varied widely:

  • Overall range: 1.4 to 32.4 mg/g paper
  • Median: 2.5–15.9 mg/g
  • Highest concentrations were associated with BPA-based receipts (up to 3.2% by weight)

This variability reflects differences in printing efficiency, developer chemistry, and manufacturer formulations.

3.3 Unexpected Compounds

In one non-commercial thermal paper sample, dapsone (6.0 mg/g) and tolbutamide (5.5 mg/g) were detected—pharmaceuticals not intended for this use. This raised concerns about contamination or experimental formulations, highlighting risks associated with non-transparent supply chains.

3.4 Chemical Stability

Although PF201 is marketed as stable, it degraded rapidly in acidic or protic solvents during lab extraction. This behavior contradicts its environmental persistence profile and indicates a need for further stability studies, especially concerning breakdown products.

3.5 Sensitizers

Three thermal sensitizers were routinely detected:

  • 1,2-Diphenoxyethane
  • 1-Phenylmethoxy-naphthalene (PMN)
  • Diphenylsulfone

These additives lower melting points and facilitate dye-developer reactions. While essential to function, they introduce additional chemical exposure risks, particularly due to skin transfer potential.

3.6 Migration and Exposure

Release tests confirmed measurable transfer of developers upon brief skin contact—worse with moist fingers. Migration potential raises concerns for frequent handlers such as cashiers. Prior studies (e.g., Biedermann et al., 2010) corroborate these findings, reporting BPA absorption rates increased up to tenfold under moist conditions.

4. Conclusion

Despite health concerns and pending EU legislation, BPA remained the leading thermal paper developer in Germany as of 2017. PF201 gained notable adoption but had limitations regarding chemical stability. Substitutes like BPS and D-8 appeared sporadically and raised their own toxicological concerns.

The analysis emphasizes the importance of not only banning specific hazardous substances like BPA but also critically evaluating the safety profiles of their replacements. Phenol-free alternatives like PF201 and vitamin C-based developers offer promise but require rigorous study. Meanwhile, widespread adoption of digital receipts and phenol-free printing technologies could offer more sustainable long-term solutions.

5. References

  1. Eckardt, M., & Simat, T. J. (2017). Bisphenol A and alternatives in thermal paper receipts – a German market analysis from 2015 to 2017. Chemosphere, 186, 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.08.037
  2. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF). (2015). Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs. EFSA Journal, 13(1), 3978.
  3. ANSES. (2014). Opinion on the restriction proposal under the REACH regulation: Bisphenol A in thermal paper. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety.
  4. Biedermann, S., Tschudin, P., & Grob, K. (2010). Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 398(1), 571–576.
  5. Fidra (2021). Bisphenols in receipts: Review of alternatives. https://www.fidra.org.uk
  1. Author et al. “Title.” Journal Name, Year.
  2. Author et al. “Title.” Composites Science and Technology, Year.
  3. NASA Technical Report, “Title”, Year.
  4. SpaceX Materials Research Division, Internal Publication, Year.

Last Updated on 18/11/2025 by Jota Machinery

Scroll to Top