Comparing Exposure Levels by Type of Welding Operation and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fume Extraction Guns

Abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Estimation of Particulate Mass and Manganese Exposure Levels among Welders

“…There was little difference between SMAW (reference category) and predicted GMAW exposures, but predicted GTAW exposures were much lower and predicted FCAW exposures were generally much higher. This is consistent with published sources of welding process and fume descriptions (Wallace et al, 2001;Harris, 2002). As expected, predicted exposures in enclosed spaces were higher than exposures in open spaces (reference category), and predictions for exposures in confined spaces were significantly higher than in open spaces.…”

“…Although exposures may still be high given the welding process performed. For instance, exposures from FCAW, which produces large quantities of particulate (Burgess, 1995;Wallace et al, 2001;Harris, 2002), with local ventilation were higher than mean exposures for other welding processes when general or no ventilation was used. While application of effective local exhaust ventilation will certainly reduce exposures where other conditions remain the same, we were unable to estimate this effect from the available literature values.…”

Exposure to respirable dust and manganese and prevalence of airways symptoms, among Swedish mild steel welders in the manufacturing industry

“…For the welders who used PAPRs (40 %), the PEMs were performed outside PAPR, and thus, their actual exposures to Mn and RD were of course lower than reported. The results are, however, not surprisingly high as earlier studies have measured Mn exposure during GMAW and AM/GM of Mn concentration between 0.07 and 0.5 mg/m3 (Smargiassi et al 2000;Susi et al 2000;Korczynski 2000;Wallace et al 2001;Ellingsen et al 2006). There are therefore concerns for adverse health effects caused by both Mn exposure, e.g., neurotoxical effects, and carcinogenic effect due to exposure to welding fumes.…”

Manganese in Occupational Arc Welding Fumes—Aspects on Physiochemical Properties, with Focus on Solubility

“…On the basis of the studies presented in Table 2, exposure to manganese from GMAW fumes could be expected to vary from 0.001 mg m −3 (DWFD, 2011) to 4.93 mg m −3 as an extreme (Korzcynski et al, 2000), with typical concentrations in the range 0.05 to 0.25 mg m −3 . Exposure from FCAW fumes could be expected to vary from 0.003 mg m −3 (Ellingsen, 2006) to 4.370 mg m −3 as an extreme (Wallace et al, 2001), with typical concentrations in the range 0.08 to 1.2 mg m −3 . Exposure from SMAW n, number of samples; SD, arithmetic standard deviation; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval calculated for AM and using t-distribution.…”