Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, 1–14

doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxab016

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
Original Article

Original Article

Welding Fume Exposure and Health Risk

Assessment in a Cohort of Apprentice Welders
Meghan E. Dueck1, Ata Rafiee2, James Mino3, Sindhu G. Nair1,
Samineh Kamravaei2, Lei Pei4 and Bernadette Quémerais2,*
1
Department of Biological Sciences, CW 405, Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada; 2Department of Medicine, 13-103 Clinical Sciences Building, 11350-83 Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G3, Canada; 3North West Environmental Group Ltd, Unit #103 - 415 Gorge Road East,
Victoria, British Columbia V8T 2W1, Canada; 4Department of Renewable Resources, 751 General Services
Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H1, Canada
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1-780-492-3240; e-mail: quemerai@ualberta.ca

Submitted 20 March 2020; revised 3 February 2021; editorial decision 8 February 2021; revised version accepted 12 February 2021.

Abstract
Welding fumes vary in composition depending on the materials and processes used, and while health
outcomes in full-time welders have been widely studied, limited research on apprentices exists.
Besides, few data are available for metals such as vanadium and antimony. This study aimed to look
at individual metals present in welding fumes in the learning environment of apprentice welders.
Forty-three welders and 41 controls were chosen from trade programmes at the Northern Alberta
Institute of Technology. Ambient and personal air samples were collected at days 0, 1, 7, and 50 of
their training and analysed for mass and metal concentrations using Inductively Coupled Plasma
Mass Spectrometry. Results showed increases in particle and metal concentrations as apprentices
progressed throughout their education and that concentrations at day 50 were similar to levels found
in the literature for professional welders. Variable concentrations indicate that some individuals may
not properly use the local exhaust ventilation system. Other possible explanation for variations are
the position of the sampler on the shoulder, the time spent welding and in each welding position, and
the skills of the welders. Strong relationships were observed between particle and metal concentra-
tions, suggesting that these relationships could be used to estimate metal exposure in welders from
particle exposure. Welding processes were the most important determinant of exposure in apprentice
welders, with Metal Core Arc Welding producing the largest particle concentrations followed by oxy-
acetylene cutting, and Gas Metal Arc Welding. Health risk assessment showed that welder apprentices
are at risk for overexposure to manganese, which suggests that professional welders should be moni-
tored for manganese as they are exposed more than apprentices. Training in proper positioning of
local exhaust ventilation system and proper use of respirators are recommended in training facilities.

Keywords:  antimony; metals; occupational health; particle; vanadium

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.
2 Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
What’s important about this paper

The exposures of apprentice welders increased over the first 50 days of training, at which time they were
similar to the reported exposures of professional welders. This increase may be due to time spent welding,
as well as type of welding performed. Metal concentrations were highly correlated with particle concentra-
tions in the apprentice welders’ breathing zones, and manganese exposures approached occupational ex-
posure limits. Apprentice welders should be trained in effective use of local exhaust ventilation to reduce the
magnitude and variability in exposures.

Introduction increased (Coggon et al., 1994; Beach et al., 1996; Koh

et al., 2015; Cosgrove and Zschiesche, 2016). In 2017,
Welding, the process of joining metals by applying heat,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer de-
generates a plethora of fumes with variable compos-
clared welding fumes carcinogenic to humans (Guha
itions depending on the methods and materials used.
et al., 2017). Increased health risks due to welding fume
Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) and Metal Core Arc
exposure in the work environment has reinforced the ap-
Welding (MCAW) use a consumable electrode to fill the
plication of various methods to monitor, and hopefully
weld on the base metal, with a shielding gas to protect
prevent, overexposure.
the weld (Antonini, 2014). The fumes are largely com-
Control methods, such as ventilation systems and
posed of respirable particulates consisting of high con-
respirators, can decrease welding fume exposure
centrations of iron and 1–5% of manganese (Jenkins
when properly applied (Lee et al., 2007; Cho et al.,
and Eagar, 2005; Jenkins et al., 2005). Other common
2011). However, poor training and education on ap-
types of welding, such as Flux Core Arc Welding
propriate use may lead to overexposure (Budhathoki
(FCAW) and Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW), are
et al., 2014). Workplace evaluations are crucial to en-
similar to GMAW but use an electrode with a flux or
sure compliance with occupational exposure limits.
coating, respectively, to shield the weld, and may or may
Regular air sampling can be time consuming and costly
not use a shielding gas (Antonini, 2014). Resulting from
(Popović et al., 2014; Yi, 2015), whereas periodic sam-
the presence of a flux or coating, FCAW and SMAW
pling provides snapshots of exposure in an environ-
often result in larger particulate sizes compared with
ment where fume composition continues to change
GMAW, and are composed of a variety of metal oxides
(Antonini et  al., 2004). The Occupational Health
at the core with a shell around the particle composed
and Safety Code (Government of Alberta, 2009) as
of the flux material (Jenkins and Eagar, 2005; Jenkins
well as the American Conference of Governmental
et al., 2005). Therefore, materials and processes im-
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (American Conference
pact fume composition, which consists of a variety of
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2019) set occu-
metal and metal oxide particles and may contain other
pational exposure limits for independent components
elements (Antonini et al., 2004; Canadian Centre for
of welding fumes due to the high variation in concen-
Occupational Health and Safety, 2019). It also im-
trations (Antonini et al., 2004; National Institute for
pacts particle size distribution, which contains fine and
Occupational Safety and Health, 2007). A thorough
ultrafine particles, influencing deposition along the re-
understanding of welding fume components and ex-
spiratory tract and potentially ailing exposed individuals
posures at all stages of an individual’s welding career
(Lehnert et al., 2012; Brand et al., 2013).
will help control overexposure, limiting occupational
Ultrafine and fine particulates from welding fumes
diseases.
may deposit in the alveoli of the respiratory tract,
While research has assessed welding fume ex-
making it difficult for efficient removal from the body
posure in professional welders (Flynn and Susi, 2010;
(Hewett, 1995; Antonini et al., 2004), consequently
Golbabaei et  al., 2012; Hassani et  al., 2012; Pesch
leading to health detriments, as established through
et al., 2012; Hanley et al., 2015), there is limited re-
decades of research on welding fume exposure (Brodie,
search focussing on exposure for welding trainees. Some
1943; Peters et al., 1973; Mehrifar et al., 2019). Metal
studies have started assessing early exposure to welding
fume fever and siderosis are commonly reported diseases
fumes, providing initial insights into exposure in the
caused by welding fume exposure (Doherty et al., 2004;
learning environment, while emphasizing the need for
El-Zein et al., 2005), whereas the risk of other diseases
further research (Teresa et al., 1997; Debia et al., 2014;
such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, occu-
Baker et al., 2016; Graczyk et al., 2016).
pational asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, and pneumonia is
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX3
In addition to limited research of apprentice ex-
posure, most welding fume studies focus on common
metals, such as iron or manganese in mild steel, or nickel
and chromium in stainless steel (Ellingsen et al., 2006;
Lehnert et al., 2012; Mehrifar et al., 2019). Metals pre-
sent in lower concentrations, such as antimony or van-
adium, are rarely reported on even though their oxides
present an occupational hazard (Ellingsen et al., 2017;
American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, 2019). There are substantial gaps in our
knowledge and understanding of welding fume compos-
ition, exposures, and possible interactions, which limits
our ability to accurately detect and prevent overexposure
in the learning environment. For this study, we investi-
gated welding fume exposure in welder apprentices.
Materials and methods
Subjects
We recruited 41 controls and 43 welders from the
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT),
Edmonton, Canada. Controls were recruited from the
instrumentation and power transmission lines pro-
grammes, and welders were recruited from the welding
programme. Smokers represented half of each group
with 21 in the control group and 20 in the welding
group. Four welders were recruited amongst second-year
apprentices, whereas all other welders were recruited
amongst first-year apprentices.
Sampling
Air samples were collected four times throughout their
8-week training session, at day 0 (orientation day), day
1, day 7, and day 50 for a total of 336 samples between
September 2015 and June 2017. For controls, six am-
bient air samples were collected in the classroom to get
an average of ambient air during their training (days 0,
1, 7, and 50), for about 3 h. For welders, six ambient
air samples were collected in the cafeteria for day 0 and
averaged to establish ambient air concentrations in the
building for about 3 h. Subsequently, air samples were
collected in the breathing zone of each subject, under-
neath the helmet, on a 5 µm polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
filter (37 mm diameter) mounted in a total dust cassette,
and connected to a Gilian Plus personal air sampling
pump (Sensidyne®, St. Petersburg, FL, USA). PVC filters
were selected as they allowed us to measure easily the
weight of particles deposited on the filters and follows
NIOSH methods 7304. Cassettes were clipped on the
shoulder of the welders, as close as possible to the face
of the subjects to ensure they would stay underneath the
welding helmet (International Standard Organization,
2011). Pumps were calibrated pre- and post-sampling.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
Sampling time was typically 3–4 h. Two field blanks
were collected each sampling day for a total of 126
blanks. In addition to air sample collection, information
on the welding process, the base material, the welding
rod, the shielding gas, the welding positions, and the use
of a respirator was recorded for each welder.
Welding processes
All welding was performed on mild steel A36.
Welding techniques and parameters are summarized in
Supplementary Table S1, available at Annals of Work
Exposures and Health online. Since welding fumes are
hotter than ambient air, they rise, and it is estimated
that welders are more exposed at flat and horizontal
positions, with exposure being the lowest at overhead
position. A previous study on GMAW showed that meas-
urements collected 79 cm just above the weld showed
higher lung deposition of particles than measurements
taken 50 cm horizontally from the weld confirming
fumes have a tendency to raise (Guerreiro et al., 2014).
Students may have grinded during the class, but it was
not recorded. Requirements from the American Welding
Society for metal composition of the rods are that man-
ganese composition can vary from 0.5 (E6010) to 1.85%
(E70S-6) and metals such as Ni, Cr, Mo, and Cu repre-
senting 0.15–0.5% of the rod. Vanadium has a lower
composition from 0.03 to 0.08% or the rod. Metal con-
tent was quite similar in all rods used for this project.
Gravimetry
Filters were weighed pre- and post-sampling on a XP6
microbalance equipped with an electrostatic device
(Mettler Toledo®, Columbus, OH, USA). Mounting and
dismounting of cassettes were performed in a laminar
flow hood to avoid filter contamination. Field blanks
were also weighed pre- and post-sampling to verify vari-
ation in weights. All filters were kept in a desiccator
to avoid adsorption of water vapour on filters. Results
for field blanks showed that the mass difference ranged
from −0.094 to 0.066 mg with an average of 0 mg and a
standard deviation of 0.023 mg. Differences in mass are
believed to be due to static despite the use of an antistatic
device. Limit of detection was calculated as three times
the standard deviation of the field blanks and was calcu-
lated at 0.07 mg filter−1 (Howard and Statham, 1997).
Metal analysis
Digestion and metal analysis were performed at the Soil,
Water, Air, Manure, and Plants (SWAMP) Laboratory
at the University of Alberta. All preparation procedures
were carried out in Class 100 metal free air cabinets.
4 Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX
Filter samples were digested in a high-pressure micro-
wave (Ultraclave, Milestone ®, Leutkirch, Germany)
using a mixture of 3 ml nitric acid (HNO 3) and 0.1
ml of tetrafluoroboric acid (HBF4). The combination
of high temperature and pressure allowed for the total
dissolution of PVC filters. All acids were sub-boiled
and plasticware was acid cleaned prior to use to avoid
any metal contamination during sample preparation
and analysis. Samples were completed to 10 ml and
diluted 10-fold for field blanks and ambient air sam-
ples and 100-fold for welding fume samples using a 2%
HNO3 solution. Analysis was performed on an iCAP-Q
Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP/
MS), (Thermo-Finnigan®, Bremen, Germany). In add-
ition to Fe and Mn, metals of interest included Al, As,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mo, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn, since they may
be present as impurities in the base material or the con-
sumables (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health
and Safety, 2019). As it was present in the calibration
standard, Sb was investigated as the trioxide is a sus-
pected carcinogen that may be present in welding rods
(American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, 2019). Field blanks and certified reference
materials MSWF-1 and SSWF-1 (HSL Laboratory,
Buxton, UK) were digested and analysed along with
regular samples to be used as quality control samples.
Some metals (Al and Cd) were detected in a few am-
bient air samples at concentrations similar to welding
samples, suggesting these metals were not present
above background in our samples. Limits of detection
were calculated as three times the standard deviation of
the field blanks (Howard and Statham, 1997). Limits
of detection varied from 0.61 (Mo and V) to 670 ng
filter−1 (Fe). Since limits of detection were higher than
or equal to the average value for field blanks, blanks
were not subtracted.
Health risk assessment
To assess health risk for welder apprentices, 8-hour
time-weighted averages (8-hour TWA) were calculated
for days 1, 7, and 50 using equation from Institut de
recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité au travail
(IRSST, Québec) (Drolet and Beauchamp, 2012):
n
(1) i=1 Ci Ti
8-hour TWA =
8 larly in control samples (46% non-detected), and at day
with Ci: concentration in environment i, and Ti: time
spent in environment i. As students were welding only
for 3–4 h day−1, negligible exposure was assumed for the
remaining of the day.
These 8-hour TWA were compared with the Alberta
8-hour occupational exposure limits (Alberta 8-hour
OEL) (Government of Alberta, 2009) and the American
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Threshold Limit Values Time-Weighted Averages for risk
assessment (ACGIH TLV-TWA) (American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2019).
Statistical analysis
GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA,
USA) and Stata (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX,
USA) were used to perform all statistical analyses. Samples
that were not detected were replaced by the limit of detec-
tion divided by the square root of 2 to avoid missing data
in analysis of variance (ANOVA) and calculation of geo-
metric means and 95% confidence intervals (Croghan and
Egeghy, 2003). Non-detected values were not replaced for
linear regression or linear mixed models. In that case, they
were only few missing data. Since data were lognormally
distributed, all data were log transformed prior to perform
parametric statistical analysis.
Linear regressions were calculated using log-
transformed data from days 1, 7, and 50 for welders
as they were not welding on day 0, and linear mixed
models were tested for determinants of exposure. Linear
regressions were performed between metal and particle
concentrations to see if we could estimate metal concen-
trations from particle concentrations. In linear mixed
models, welding process, type of consumable, shielding
gas, welding position, and use of respirator were tested
as fixed effects. As each subject presented a different
intercept, subjects were put as a random effect in linear
mixed models.
Results
Particle and metal concentrations
Particles and metals were detected more often in welders
than in controls with non-detected values ranging
from 45 to 100% for controls and from 13 to 40% in
welders. Most non-detected values for welders were ob-
served at day 0 when ambient air samples were collected
although non-detected values were observed for other
days as well. Welding fume sample concentrations (days
1–50) were generally higher than the detection limit.
Chromium was the only metal that was detected regu-
0 for welders at slightly higher levels than field blanks,
suggesting the measured chromium concentrations for
these samples comes mainly from filters. However, the
concentrations were significantly lower in field blanks
compared with air samples collected during welding
(Table 1, Figs 1 and 2).
Table 1.  Summary of metals measured for welding apprentices and controls for each sampling day.

Air samples Controls Welders

All samples (N = 164) Day 0 (N = 44) Day 1 (N= 44) Day 7 (N = 44) Day 50 (N = 44)

GM (95% CI) GM (95% CI) GM (95% CI) GM (95% CI) GM (95% CI)
−3
Particles (mg m ) ND ND 0.7 (0.6–1.0) 0.9 (0.8–1.1) 2.1 (1.7–2.5)
As (µg m−3) ND ND 0.08 (0.06–0.10) 0.18 (0.14–0.23) 0.58 (0.48–0.71)
Co (µg m−3) 0.022 (0.021–0.024) ND 0.04 (0.03–0.05) 0.05 (0.04–0.06) 0.13 (0.10–0.16)
Cr (µg m−3) 1.0 (1.0–1.1) 0.9 (0.8–1.0) 2.0 (1.7–2.3) 2.0 (1.8–2.3) 2.8 (2.6–3.1)
Cu (µg m−3) 0.040 (0.038–0.042) 0.04 (0.04–0.05) 2.5 (1.7–3.7) 5.1 (4.0–6.4) 12 (9.4–14)
Fe (mg m−3) 0.001 (0.001–0.002) 0.0021 (0.0017–0.0025) 0.21 (0.14–0.32) 0.34 (0.28–0.41) 0.89 (0.72–1.1)
Mn (µg m−3) NDa 0.29 (0.27–0.30) 21 (14–31) 29 (24–35) 75 (59–95)
Mo (µg m−3) 0.002 (0.001–0.002) 0.002 (0.002–0.003) 0.05 (0.03–0.07) 0.12 (0.09–0.15) 0.44 (0.36–0.54)
Ni (µg m−3) 0.06 (0.06–0.07) 0.05 (0.04–0.06) 0.27 (0.20–0.35) 0.62 (0.49–0.79) 4.1 (3.3–5.2)
Pb (µg m−3) 0.0023 (0.0022–0.0023) 0.003 (0.002–0.003) 0.07 (0.05–0.10) 0.22 (0.17–0.27) 0.55 (0.39–0.77)
Sb (µg m−3) 0.004 (0.003–0.005) 0.0027 (0.0026–0.0028) 0.02 (0.01–0.02) 0.07 (0.05–0.10) 3.7 (2.5–5.5)
V (µg m−3) 0.0014 (0.0014–0.0015) 0.0017 (0.0015–0.0019) 0.02 (0.01–0.03) 0.02 (0.02–0.03) 0.06 (0.05–0.08)
Zn (µg m−3) 0.28 (0.26–0.30) 0.34 (0.30–0.39) 1.1 (0.8–1.6) 2.0 (1.6–2.4) 6.1 (4.9–7.6)

CI, confidence interval; GM, geometric mean; ND, not detected.

a
Only one value was detected for Mn at 1.1 µg m−3.
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
6
Ambient air samples for welding apprentices col-
lected during orientation (day 0) and samples collected
for controls displayed comparable particle levels at
0.0073 and 0.091 mg m−3, respectively (Fig. 1). Low
metal concentrations reported for all control samples
and day 0 samples for welding apprentices (Figs 1 and
2, Supplementary Fig. S1, available at Annals of Work
Exposures and Health online) establish a baseline for
regular environmental exposure and are comparable to
normal environmental exposure levels reported in the re-
gion (Government of Alberta, 2016, 2019).
Particle concentrations measured for welder appren-
tices were variable, from non-detected to 10 mg m−3 with
an overall geometric mean of 0.6 mg m −3. Geometric
means of particle levels for days 1, 7, and 50 were 0.7,
0.9, and 2.1 mg m−3, respectively (Table 1). Two-way
repeated measures ANOVA on log-transformed data
showed that particle concentrations were significantly
different (P < 0.001) between welders and controls, as
well as between sampling days (Fig. 1). An addition one-
way ANOVA was done on data from welders only and
showed significant difference (P < 0.001) between day
0 and other sampling days. There were also significant
differences (P < 0.001) between days 1 and 50 as well as
days 7 and 50 but not between days 1 and 7.
Manganese concentrations varied from non-detected
to 190 µg m−3 at day 1, from 8 to 104 µg m−3 at day
7, and 19 to 391 µg m−3 at day 50 with respective geo-
metric means of 21, 29, and 75 µg m−3 (Table 1). Iron
concentrations varied from 0.004 to 4.5 mg m−3 with
geometric means at days 1, 7, and 50 being 0.21, 0.34,
and 0.89 mg m−3, respectively (Table 1). Chromium con-
centrations at days 1–50 varied from non-detected to
6.0 µg m−3 with a geometric mean of 2.8 µg m−3 at day 50
Figure 1.  Particles concentrations for each sampling day for welders and controls. Bars show geometric means and 95% con-
fidence intervals. Lines at 3 and 10 m m−3 are the 8-hour occupational exposure limits for respirable and inhalable particles, re-
spectively. Note that Albert and ACGIH have the same limits for particles.
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX
(Table 1). Geometric means for chromium did not raise
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
as much at day 50, likely because some of it came from
the filters. However, they were significantly different at
days 1, 7, and 50 than at day 0 or for controls. Nickel
concentrations had geometric means of 0.27, 0.62, and
4.1 µg m−3 at days 1, 7, and 50, respectively.
Correlations between metal and particle
concentrations
Individual metals showed a positive correlation with
total particles (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S2, avail-
able at Annals of Work Exposures and Health online).
Relatively strong correlations were found for metals
commonly reported in welding fumes and particu-
lates (r2 = 0.66 and 0.61 for iron and manganese, re-
spectively). A strong positive correlation (r 2 = 0.92)
was observed between iron and manganese in welding
fumes (Fig. 3). These correlations support previous
findings that as iron increases in welding fumes, man-
ganese also increases (Flynn and Susi, 2010), and as
particle concentration increases, individual metal com-
ponents increase too (Flynn and Susi, 2010; Lehnert
et al., 2012). Equations for all metals, including all re-
gression coefficients, are presented in Supplementary
Table S2, available at Annals of Work Exposures and
Health online.
A Pearson correlation matrix on log-transformed
particle and metal concentrations is shown in Table 2.
All metals were significantly correlated with particles (P
< 0.001) with r2 ranging from 0.54 (Cr) to 0.81 (Fe).
All metals showed a stronger correlation with iron than
with particles with r2 tanging from 0.55 (Cr) to 0.96
(Mn) (Table 2).
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX7
Figure 2.  Metal concentrations for welders and controls for all sampling days for Cr, Fe, Mn and Ni. Bars show geometric means
and 95% confidence intervals.
Determinant of exposure
Since SMAW was performed only by second-year ap-
prentices and GMAW by first-year apprentices for all
welding days, SMAW and GMAW were found to be
auto correlated and SMAW was omitted in the model.
Results are presented in Supplementary Table S3, avail-
able at Annals of Work Exposures and Health online.
The best model was found with welding process
only. Including the use of respirator, type of consum-
able, shielding gas, and welding positions did not im-
prove the model (P > 0.05). Results are consistent with
the WELDOX study where the principal determinant of
particle concentrations was the welding process (Lehnert
et al., 2012). Our results suggest that MCAW produces
the most fumes, followed by oxyacetylene cutting, and
GMAW (Supplementary Table S3, available at Annals of
Work Exposures and Health online). However, since we
do not know the time spent welding and cutting, or if
the students were grinding, it is difficult to determine the
exact causation.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
Health risk assessment
For most metals, 8-hour TWA were well below the
Alberta 8-hour OEL and ACGIH TLV-TWA (Table 3).
For some students, manganese was below the Alberta
8-hour OEL but above the TLV-TWA, which suggests
that welder apprentices may be at risk of overexposure
even when welding only 3–4 h day−1. A previous study
(Harris et al., 2005) showed that there was little differ-
ence between inhalable and total manganese for SMAW
fumes. In addition, a study on the size distribution of
particles of GMAW fumes showed that the distribution
was bimodal with modes at 40–50 and 180–200 nm
with particle size shifting from the smaller mode to
the larger one when using less CO2 and higher current
(Guerreiro et al., 2014). In all cases, however, the size
distributions show particles largely in the respirable
range. Results from these studies suggest that even ap-
prentices may be overexposed to respirable manganese
as the TLV-TWA is 20 µg m−3 and the geometric mean at
day 50 was 27 µg m−3.
8 Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021

Figure 3.  Linear regressions between iron and particles, manganese and particles, and iron and manganese.

Discussion was observed in previous studies (Flynn and Susi, 2010;

Hobson et al., 2011; Hassani et al., 2012; Lehnert et al.,
Particle concentrations at days 1 and 7 were gener-
2012; Pesch et al., 2012; Hedmer et al., 2014). In the
ally lower than concentrations measured in welding
literature, most studies investigate exposure to specific
shops, however, levels at day 50 were similar to what
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX9

metals such as manganese and iron (Hlavay et al., 1993;

0.42

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
V
Table 2.  Pearson correlation on log transform data for metals and particles (detected values only). All correlations were highly significant (P < 0.001; n ranging from 97
Flynn and Susi, 2010; Hobson et al., 2011; Hassani
et al., 2012; Pesch et al., 2012; Ellingsen et al., 2013;
Hedmer et al., 2014; Hanley et al., 2015; Baker et al.,
2016; Jeong et  al., 2016) and chromium and nickel

0.30
0.54
Sb

(Golbabaei et al., 2012; Weiss et al., 2013; Pesch et al.,

2018). Fewer studies look at other metals (Teresa et al.,
1997; Ellingsen et al., 2017; Insley et al., 2019). As for
particulates, results for total manganese at day 50 were

0.55
0.42
0.73
Pb

similar or slightly lower than concentrations reported

in previous studies (Korczynski, 2000; Flynn and Susi,
2010; Hobson et al., 2011; Pesch et al., 2012; Insley
et al., 2019). Manganese levels are also very similar
0.70
0.88
0.51
0.68
Ni

to those observed for GMAW in a training facility in

Washington State (Baker et al., 2016). Iron concentra-
tions at day 50 were slightly lower than levels measured
in previous studies (Korczynski, 2000; Flynn and Susi,
0.85
0.70
0.54
0.59
0.68
Mo

2010; Pesch et al., 2012; Insley et al., 2019). Chromium

values were lower than concentrations measured in
other welding shops for different welding techniques
on mild steel with reported levels in previous studies
0.49
0.68
0.45
0.73
0.63
0.45
Mn

varying from 3.3 to 45.7 µg m−3 (Golbabaei et al., 2012;

Ellingsen et al., 2017; Insley et al., 2019; Pesch et al.,
2018). Nickel concentrations at day 50 were much lower
than levels observed in the Iranian study, but similar to
0.91
0.73
0.82
0.58
0.73
0.72
0.58
Fe

levels observed for respirable Ni in GMAW samples in

the WELDOX study, and about 10 times higher than
levels observed in a Pennsylvania study (Golbabaei et al.,
2012; Insley et al., 2019; Pesch et al., 2019).
0.76
0.51
0.95
0.80
0.68
0.48
0.56
0.67
Cu

There is less information about other metals in the

literature. For most metals, concentrations measured
in welding shops in Pennsylvania were slightly lower
than levels observed at day 50 in our study (Insley et al.,
0.45
0.56
0.53
0.45
0.47
0.35
0.40
0.47
0.56
Cr

2019). However, Insley et al. (2019) also found slightly

higher concentrations for chromium, iron, and manga-
nese, and levels of about 10 times higher for vanadium
than in our study while the copper concentrations were
0.57
0.94
0.74
0.49
0.95
0.81
0.67
0.49
0.61
0.67
Co

about 4 times lower than in our study (Table 1) (Insley

et al., 2019). Interestingly, these authors did not detect
antimony (Insley et al., 2019). Geometric mean concen-
trations for days 1, 7, and 50 for antimony were, respect-
0.95
0.48
0.94
0.68
0.43
0.97
0.85
0.71
0.54
0.57
0.70
As

ively, 0.02, 0.07, and 3.7 µg m−3. Antimony was detected

in highest concentrations at day 50 and in 63% of the
samples at day 1 (Fig. 2). Ellingsen et al. (2017) con-
ducted a study in shipyards in Russia, reporting median
Particles

0.59
0.63
0.52
0.60
0.89
0.88
0.63
0.70
0.47
0.63
0.80
0.50

values about 10 times higher for vanadium, while mo-

to 132; two-tailed).

lybdenum had concentrations only slightly higher than

those observed in this study (Table 1) (Ellingsen et al.,
2017). Finally, a study on apprentices in Portugal found
similar levels for iron, manganese, and copper, whereas
Particles

zinc and lead were about 10 times higher than in our

Mn
Mo
Co

Cu

Zn
As

Cr

Ni
Pb

study (Teresa et al., 1997). These differences between

Sb
Fe

V
10 Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX

Table 3.  Summary of 8-hour TWA geometric mean (and range), Alberta 8-hour OEL (Government of Alberta, 2009), and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
ACGIH TLV-TWA (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2019) for welding participants for days 1,
7, and 50. Exposure limits are in the inhalable and total fraction except for Fe and Zn that had only a limit for the respir-
able fraction.

Day 1 Day 7 Day 50 Alberta OEL ACGIH TLV

Particles (mg m−3) 0.25 (0.05–1.7) 0.39 (0.07–1.3) 0.74 (0.17–4.1) 10 10

As (µg m−3) 0.03 (0.01–0.16) 0.07 (0.01–0.81) 0.21 (0.05–1.4) 10 10
Co (µg m−3) 0.01 (0.007–0.07) 0.02 (0.007–0.18) 0.05 (0.008–0.30) 20 20
Cr (µg m−3) 0.66 (0.28–1.5) 0.86 (0.28–1.7) 1.0 (0.55–2.2) 500 500
Cu (µg m−3) 0.84 (0.03–7.3) 2.1 (0.29–17) 4.1 (1.1–27) 200 200
Fe (mg m−3) 0.07 (0.001–0.90) 0.14 (0.02–0.74) 0.32 (0.06–1.6) 5a 5a
Mn (µg m−3) 6.9 (0.11–71) 12 (1.6–52) 27 (5.5–147) 200 100
Mo (µg m−3) 0.02 (0.001–0.19) 0.05 (0.004–0.56) 0.15 (0.04–1.0) 10 000 10 000
Ni (µg m−3) 0.09 (0.02–0.80) 0.26 (0.01–2.4) 1.5 (0.32–7.6) 100; 200b 100; 200b
Pb (µg m−3) 0.02 (0.002–0.16) 0.09 (0.03–1.0) 0.19 (0.001–1.0) 50 50
Sb (µg m−3) 0.005 (0.001–0.06) 0.03 (0.001–0.40) 1.3 (0.03–9.3) 500 500
V (µg m−3) 0.006 (0.001–0.09) 0.01 (0.001–0.11) 0.022 (0.003–0.22) 50c 50c
Zn (µg m−3) 0.36 (0.09–5.4) 0.82 (0.21–6.3) 2.2 (0.46–8.4) 2000d 2000d

a
Limit used is for Fe oxide.
b
First limit is for soluble inorganic compounds; second one for insoluble inorganic compounds.
c
Limit used is for V pentoxide as V.
d
Limit used is for Zn oxide.

studies are likely due to the use of different wires and/
or electrodes, since welders were using FCAW in the
Pennsylvania study, SMAW and GMAW in the Russian
study, and SMAW only in the Portuguese study (Teresa
et al., 1997; Ellingsen et al., 2017; Insley et al., 2019).
A large variation in particle levels was observed, par-
ticularly at day 50, with concentrations varying from 0.4
to 10.0 mg m−3. Large variations in particle concentrations
were also observed in other studies, with mass concen-
trations varying from non-detected to 21.5 mg m−3 in the
WELDOX study (Lehnert et al., 2012), and from 1.4 mg
m−3 up to 21.5 mg m−3 for pipeline welders and fitters in
Iran (Hassani et al., 2012; Lehnert et al., 2012). A literature
review reports concentrations for GMAW ranging from
0.05 to 12 mg m−3, which is consistent with our findings
(Hobson et al., 2011). Since most welders were doing the
same type of work at day 50, the observed variation may
be due to the positioning of the local exhaust ventilation
system in each booth, as hoods are efficient in capturing
welding fumes only if they are positioned at about one
hood diameter from the source (Pocock et al., 2009). Other
environmental factors may include the position of the sam-
pler on the shoulder, the welding positions (flat, horizontal,
vertical, and overhead), and time spent welding. Individual
factors may also apply such as skills of the welder.
Like particles, metal concentrations were variable, but
significantly (P < 0.001) higher in welding apprentices
compared with controls (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig.
S1, available at Annals of Work Exposures and Health
online). Metal levels significantly increased throughout
the programme as apprentices became more proficient at
welding (P < 0.01) (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. S1,
available at Annals of Work Exposures and Health on-
line). This trend is particularly evident in the most abun-
dant metals present in welding fumes from mild steel,
iron and manganese, with the geometric mean almost
tripling between the second week of sampling and the
end of their programme (day 7 iron = 0.34 mg m−3, day
50 iron = 0.89 mg m−3; day 7 manganese = 29 µg m−3,
day 50 manganese = 75 µg m−3). Our study shows that
welding apprentices were getting greater exposure as
their skills increased. Since instructors gave directions to
students during their training sessions, it is possible that
instructional time was longer at the beginning than at
the end of the course resulting in lower exposure at the
beginning. Other factors can also account for it. Trainees
were doing mainly GMAW on day 1, GMAW and oxy-
acetylene cutting on day 7 and GMAW, MCAW and
oxyacetylene cutting on day 50. Oxyacetylene cutting
has been shown to produce more particles than welding
processes in a study in a structural steel construction fa-
cility (Mino and Quemerais, 2017) which could have in-
creased the exposure on day 50. As well, trainees were
using flat, horizontal, and vertical positions on days 1
and 7 while they were mainly using flat and horizontal
positions on day 50. Variations in welding positions may
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX11
have influenced the data as well as we do not know how
much time each subject spent in each welding position.
In the linear mixed model, welding processes were
the only significant effects with MCAW producing the
larger amount of particles followed by oxyacetylene cut-
ting and GMAW. Time spent welding for each process or
welding in each position was not recorded for trainees
therefore making it very difficult to know which fac-
tors were the most important in determining exposure.
In addition, the model explained only 32% of the vari-
ation; within-individual variance was 68%. The high
variation within subjects may have various explanations.
Position of the sampler (left or right side of the welder)
may have influenced the particle concentrations (Lidén
and Surakka, 2009). Position of the cassette (left or right
side of the head) was not noted during sampling, and it
is possible that some subjects may have been tested on
both sides. In addition, the local exhaust ventilation in
welding booths may not have been positioned the same
way each sampling day (apprentices were always as-
signed to the same booth), leading to different removal
efficiencies. More field data with better information on
time spent in each welding process are therefore neces-
sary to better predict particle exposure in welders.
Considering that many professional welders gen-
erally work 40 h per week in Alberta, concentrations
at day 50 can be used as an estimate of 8-hour TWA
for metals and particles. As for apprentices, profes-
sional welders are at risk to be exposed over the Alberta
8-hour OEL or ACGIH TLV-TWA for manganese and
particles, particularly if they work in poorly ventilated
areas. These results are consistent with a previous study
in Manitoba, which found that 62% of the welders were
overexposed to manganese (Korczynski, 2000).
Previous studies have shown that welding particles
are not easily cleared from the lungs (Antonini et al.,
2011; Andujar et al., 2014) and that particle loading
in the lungs may lead to adverse health effects (Coggon
et al., 1994; Beach et al., 1996; Guha et al., 2017). It is
therefore necessary to ensure that welders are properly
protected as soon as they start their training. Manganese
overexposure is thought to increase risks of neurological
problems (Flynn and Susi, 2009; Long et  al., 2014;
Baker et al., 2015), highlighting the importance of en-
suring compliance with occupational exposure limits.
A literature review done on neurological health effects in
welders showed that some possible cases of manganism
were observed at Mn levels similar to the ones in our
study (Flynn and Susi, 2009). Since apprentices ap-
proach manganese and particle exposure limits as their
skills develop, monitoring exposures and implementing
controls is crucial—even at early stages of education.
Metals present in high concentrations in welding
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
fumes are extensively reported in the literature, along
with accompanying health risks. Metals present in
lower concentrations in welding fumes, particularly in
mild steel fumes, receive less attention and are less fre-
quently reported on. We reliably detected two uncom-
monly reported metals (antimony and vanadium), in
welding fumes with increasing exposure concentra-
tions throughout the programme (Table 1). Although in
smaller concentrations than common metals in welding
fumes, these metals are also depositing and accumulating
within the apprentices’ respiratory systems (Hicks et al.,
1984; Buerke et al., 2002). Their interactions with other
welding fume components and the body is poorly under-
stood and may potentially impact a welder’s health.
There appears to be no research specifically assessing
exposure to antimony in welding fumes, and by exten-
sion, any potential detrimental health effects in rela-
tion to other fume components. Cooper and Harrison
(2009) conducted a brief review of antimony exposures
and potential health effects, concluding that a variety
of refinement and metal working jobs are susceptible to
antimony overexposure, and that regular monitoring is
important to prevent overexposure and any side effects,
such as irritation of skin and lungs, or pneumoconi-
osis (Cooper and Harrison, 2009). Antimony trioxide
is classified as a suspected carcinogen by the ACGIH
and should be present at concentrations as low as is
reasonably achievable, while the Alberta Occupational
Health and Safety Code and ACGIH give a 8-hour
TWA of 500 µg m−3 for antimony as a metal (Table 3)
(Government of Alberta, 2009; American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2019). Since
most metals in welding fumes are oxides, it is likely
that antimony is also present as an oxide, which raises
questions about the risks for welders. However, this
hypothesis would have to be verified using other tech-
niques, such as X-ray diffraction.
More research exists on vanadium exposures in the
workplace and general air pollution overall (Ghio et al.,
2002; Kampa and Castanas, 2008). Zhang et al.’s (2009)
review concluded that vanadium exposure is associated
with cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, but more
extensive studies, both in the workplace and general en-
vironment, are needed (Zhang et al., 2009).
Equations obtained with linear regressions to predict
manganese and iron were different than those in The
Welding Institute (TWI) dataset (Flynn and Susi, 2010).
This can be explained by the different welding techniques
used in the TWI dataset, with many samples coming from
SMAW and FCAW welding processes. These techniques
use flux or coating on the consumable that can increase
12
the mass concentration of particles, leading to lower iron
and manganese concentrations in the particles, as fluxes
and coatings contain various other elements such as cal-
cium, fluoride, and silica (Jenkins et al., 2005). The re-
gression between manganese and iron was very similar to
the one reported from the TWI dataset (CMn = 0.086CFe in
their study versus CMn = 0.085CFe0.96 in our study) (Flynn
and Susi, 2010). In the WELDOX study, a strong rela-
tionship was found between iron and manganese with a
slope close to 1, which is also consistent with our results
(Pesch et al., 2012). The ratio of manganese to iron is
similar in SMAW and GMAW electrodes, which may ex-
plain the closer relationship between iron and manganese
(r2 = 0.92) than between metals and particles (r2 ≤ 0.66).
Results from the linear regression may be used to es-
timate metal concentrations from particle or iron con-
centrations in welding shops as a first approach, to
determine if there is a risk of overexposure in the facility.
Particle concentrations are cheaper to quantify and can
be determined using a direct reading instrument. This
approach could allow facilities to perform more fre-
quent monitoring of welders at low cost. It is interesting
to note that the welding process did not seem to have a
significant effect on the metal composition of the fumes,
possibly because the students were welding with mild
steel plates with no coating and were using rods with
similar metal composition.
Summary and conclusion
Welding apprentices demonstrated an increase in fume
exposure as they became more proficient at welding,
nearing exposure limits early in their careers particu-
larly for Mn and particles, throughout their programme.
As they continue with their education and move into the
workforce, exposure can be expected to increase with
longer working hours, a greater variety of materials and
processes used, and higher diversity of working condi-
tions (Antonini et al., 2004). Pronounced variation in
exposures between subjects indicate that some students
may not have been properly using the local exhaust
ventilation, suggesting training in how to use the venti-
lation system may be useful for apprentices. Large vari-
ations within subjects were also recorded, which may be
due to the position of the samplers, position of the LEV,
time spent welding, time spent in each welding position,
or skils of the welder. The use of a mini-sampler lo-
cated closer to the mouth is recommended to avoid this
problem (Lidén and Surakka, 2009). A thorough under-
standing of welding fume components and how they im-
pact welder’s health individually and interactively will
help prevent overexposure in learning environments,
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX
and welding shops later in welder’s careers. While we
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
reliably identified and reported on two infrequently re-
ported metals in welding fumes, particularly at the ap-
prentice level, it is important to verify these findings in
other environments and continue to assess all welding
fume components to ensure healthy working environ-
ments. Thorough health and safety training on proper
use of controls, such as ventilation and respiratory pro-
tection, should be included in training facilities to avoid
overexposure of welders during their career and should
be encouraged by instructors.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary data are available at Annals of Work Exposures
and Health online.
Funding
This work was supported by OHS Futures Government of
Alberta (grant numbers 095202313 and 095210935), and the
Lung Association of Alberta and Northwest Territories.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
staff for their assistance in obtaining participants and a thank
you to all participants who volunteered. We are exceptionally
grateful to Dr Beatrice Bicalho from the SWAMP Laboratory,
University of Alberta, for her attention to detail and excellency.
The authors also want to thank Dr Marc Cassiède for his help
in collecting and preparing samples and Dr Paige Lacy for her
help with project management and coordination. Finally, the au-
thors want to thank Jean-Michel Galarneau for his help with
the linear mixed models.
Authors’ contributions
All authors have given approval to the final version of the
manuscript. All authors contributed with the design, collection,
and analysis of data. The manuscript was written through con-
tributions of these authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known conflicts of finan-
cial interests.
References
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
(2019) Threshold limit values and biological exposure in-
dices. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH. p. 282.
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX13
Andujar P, Simon-Deckers A, Galateau-Sallé F et al. (2014) Role
of metal oxide nanoparticles in histopathological changes
observed in the lung of welders. Part Fibre Toxicol; 11: 23.
Antonini JM. (2014) Health effects associated with welding.
Compr Mater Process; 8: 49–70.
Antonini JM, Roberts JR, Stone S et al. (2011) Persistence of de-
posited metals in the lungs after stainless steel and mild steel
welding fume inhalation in rats. Arch Toxicol; 85: 487–98.
Antonini JM, Taylor MD, Zimmer AT et al. (2004) Pulmonary
responses to welding fumes: role of metal constituents. J
Toxicol Environ Health A; 67: 233–49.
Baker MG, Criswell SR, Racette BA et al. (2015) Neurological
outcomes associated with low-level manganese exposure
in an inception cohort of asymptomatic welding trainees.
Scand J Work Environ Health; 41: 94–101.
Baker MG, Stover B, Simpson CD et al. (2016) Using exposure
windows to explore an elusive biomarker: blood manga-
nese. Int Arch Occup Environ Health; 89: 679–87.
Beach JR, Dennis JH, Avery AJ et al. (1996) An epidemiologic
investigation of asthma in welders. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med; 154: 1394–400.
Brand P, Lenz K, Reisgen U et al. (2013) Number size distri-
bution of fine and ultrafine fume particles from various
welding processes. Ann Occup Hyg; 57: 305–13.
Brodie J. (1943) Welding fumes and gases: their effects on the
health of the worker. Cal West Med; 59: 13–8.
Budhathoki SS, Singh SB, Sagtani RA et al. (2014) Awareness
of occupational hazards and use of safety measures among
welders: a cross-sectional study from Eastern Nepal. BMJ
Open; 4: e004646.
Buerke U, Schneider J, Rösler J et al. (2002) Interstitial pul-
monary fibrosis after severe exposure to welding fumes. Am
J Ind Med; 41: 259–68.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (2019)
Welding [cited 2 May 2018]. Available at http://www.ccohs.
ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/welding/. Accessed 2 May 2019.
Cho HW, Yoon CS, Lee JH et al. (2011) Comparison of pressure
drop and filtration efficiency of particulate respirators using
welding fumes and sodium chloride. Ann Occup Hyg; 55:
666–80.
Coggon D, Inskip H, Winter P et al. (1994) Lobar pneumonia:
an occupational disease in welders. Lancet; 344: 41–3.
Cooper RG, Harrison AP. (2009) The exposure to and health
effects of antimony. Indian J Occup Environ Med; 13: 3–10.
Cosgrove M, Zschiesche W. (2016) Arc welding of steels and
pulmonary fibrosis. Weld World; 60: 191–9.
Croghan C, Egeghy P. (2003) Methods of dealing with values
below the limit of detection using SAS. Presented at
Southern SAS User Group, St. Petersburg, FL, September
22–24, 2003.
Debia M, Weichenthal S, Dufresne A. (2014) Ultrafine particles
exposure in apprentice welders. J Occup Environ Hyg; 11:
D1–9.
Doherty MJ, Healy M, Richardson SG et al. (2004) Total body
iron overload in welder’s siderosis. Occup Environ Med; 61:
82–5.
Drolet D, Beauchamp G. (2012) Guide d’échantillonnage des
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
contaminants de l’air en milieu de travail, in Études et
recherches. Montréal, Canada: Institut de recherche Robert
Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). pp. 1–150.
Ellingsen DG, Chashchin M, Berlinger B et al. (2017) Biological
monitoring of welders’ exposure to chromium, molyb-
denum, tungsten and vanadium. J Trace Elem Med Biol; 41:
99–106.
Ellingsen DG, Dubeikovskaya L, Dahl K et al. (2006) Air ex-
posure assessment and biological monitoring of manganese
and other major welding fume components in welders. J
Environ Monit; 8: 1078–86.
Ellingsen DG, Zibarev E, Kusraeva Z et al. (2013) The bio-
availability of manganese in welders in relation to its
solubility in welding fumes. Environ Sci Process Impacts;
15: 357–65.
El-Zein M, Infante-Rivard C, Malo JL et al. (2005) Is metal
fume fever a determinant of welding related respiratory
symptoms and/or increased bronchial responsiveness?
A longitudinal study. Occup Environ Med; 62: 688–94.
Flynn MR, Susi P. (2009) Neurological risks associated with
manganese exposure from welding operations—a literature
review. Int J Hyg Environ Health; 212: 459–69.
Flynn MR, Susi P. (2010) Manganese, iron, and total particulate
exposures to welders. J Occup Environ Hyg; 7: 115–26.
Ghio AJ, Silbajoris R, Carson JL et al. (2002) Biologic effects
of oil fly ash. Environ Health Perspect; 110 (Suppl. 1):
89–94.
Golbabaei F, Seyedsomea M, Ghahri A et al. (2012) Assessment
of welders exposure to carcinogen metals from manual
metal arc welding in gas transmission pipelines, Iran. Iran J
Public Health; 41: 61–70.
Government of Alberta. (2009) Occupational Health and Safety
Code. Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Alberta. pp. 1–568.
Government of Alberta. (2016) Airdata Data Summary Report
[cited 12 June 2019]. Available at http://airdata.alberta.ca/
aepcontent/reports/DataSummaryMain.aspx. Accessed 12
June 2019.
Government of Alberta. (2019) Edmonton Area Air Quality
Readings (Historical) [cited 12 June 2019]. Available at
https://data.edmonton.ca/Environmental-Services/Edmonton-
Area-Air-Quality-Readings-Historical-/44dx-d5qn. Accessed
12 June 2019.
Graczyk H, Lewinski N, Zhao J et al. (2016) Characterization
of tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding fume generated by ap-
prentice welders. Ann Occup Hyg; 60: 205–19.
Guerreiro C, Gomes JF, Carvalho P et al. (2014) Characterization
of airborne particles generated from metal active gas
welding process. Inhal Toxicol; 26: 345–52.
Guha N, Loomis D, Guyton KZ et al; International Agency for
Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. (2017)
Carcinogenicity of welding, molybdenum trioxide, and in-
dium tin oxide. Lancet Oncol; 18: 581–2.
Hanley KW, Andrews R, Bertke S et al. (2015) Manganese frac-
tionation using a sequential extraction method to evaluate
welders’ shielded metal arc welding exposures during
14 Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2021, Vol. XX, No. XX
construction projects in oil refineries. J Occup Environ Hyg;
12: 774–84.
Harris MK, Ewing WM, Longo W et al. (2005) Manganese ex-
posures during shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) in an
enclosed space. J Occup Environ Hyg; 2: 375–82.
Hassani H, Golbabaei F, Ghahri A et al. (2012) Occupational
exposure to manganese-containing welding fumes and pul-
monary function indices among natural gas transmission
pipeline welders. J Occup Health; 54: 316–22.
Hedmer M, Karlsson JE, Andersson U et al. (2014) Exposure
to respirable dust and manganese and prevalence of air-
ways symptoms, among Swedish mild steel welders in the
manufacturing industry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health;
87: 623–34.
Hewett P. (1995) Estimation of regional pulmonary deposition
and exposure for fumes from SMAW and GMAW mild
and stainless steel consumables. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 56:
136–42.
Hicks R, Lam HF, Al-Shamma KJ et al. (1984) Pneumoconiotic
effects of welding-fume particles from mild and stainless
steel deposited in the lung of the rat. Arch Toxicol; 55:
1–10.
Hlavay J, Antal L, Polyák K et al. (1993) Distribution of toxic
metals in dusts collected at different workshops. Sci Total
Environ; 136: 93–9.
Hobson A, Seixas N, Sterling D et al. (2011) Estimation of
particulate mass and manganese exposure levels among
welders. Ann Occup Hyg; 55: 113–25.
Howard AG, Statham PJ. (1997) Inorganic trace analysis: phil-
osophy and practice. Chichester, Sussex, England: John
Wiley & Sons. p. 182.
Insley AL, Maskrey JR, Hallett LA et al. (2019) Occupational
survey of airborne metal exposures to welders, metal-
workers, and bystanders in small fabrication shops. J Occup
Environ Hyg; 16: 410–21.
International Standard Organization. (2011) Health and
safety in welding and allied processes—sampling of air-
borne particles and gases in the operator’s breathing
zone—Part 1: Sampling of airborne particles. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Standard Organization. pp.
1–42.
Jenkins NT, Eagar TW. (2005) Chemical analysis of welding
fume particles. Weld J; 84: 87s–93s.
Jenkins NT, Pierce WMG, Eagar TW. (2005) Particle size distri-
bution of gas metal and flux cored arc welding fumes. Weld
J; 84: 156-s–163-s.
Jeong JY, Park JS, Kim PG. (2016) Characterization of total and
size-fractionated manganese exposure by work area in a
shipbuilding yard. Saf Health Work; 7: 150–5.
Kampa M, Castanas E. (2008) Human health effects of air pol-
lution. Environ Pollut; 151: 362–7.
Koh DH, Kim JI, Kim KH et al; Korea Welders Cohort Group.
(2015) Welding fume exposure and chronic obstructive pul-
monary disease in welders. Occup Med (Lond); 65: 72–7.
Korczynski RE. (2000) Occupational health concerns in the
welding industry. Appl Occup Environ Hyg; 15: 936–45.
Lee M-H, McClellan WJ, Candela J et al. (2007) Reduction of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab016/6247065 by Serials Section, Dixson Library user on 29 May 2021
nanoparticle exposure to welding aerosols by modification
of the ventilation system in a workplace. J Nanopart Res;
9: 127–36.
Lehnert M, Pesch B, Lotz A et al; Weldox Study Group. (2012)
Exposure to inhalable, respirable, and ultrafine particles in
welding fume. Ann Occup Hyg; 56: 557–67.
Lidén G, Surakka J. (2009) A headset-mounted mini sampler
for measuring exposure to welding aerosol in the breathing
zone. Ann Occup Hyg; 53: 99–116.
Long  Z, Jiang  YM, Li  XR et  al. (2014) Vulnerability of
welders to manganese exposure—a neuroimaging study.
Neurotoxicology; 45: 285–92.
Mehrifar Y, Zamanian Z, Pirami H. (2019) Respiratory ex-
posure to toxic gases and metal fumes produced by welding
processes and pulmonary function tests. Int J Occup
Environ Med; 10: 40–9.
Mino J, Quemerais B (2017) Using a particle counter to inform
the creation of similar exposure groups and sampling proto-
cols in a structural steel fabrication facility. Toxics; 5: 1–17.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007)
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Department
of Health and Human Services, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH
Publication.
Pesch B, Kendzia B, Pohlabeln H et al. (2019) Exposure to
welding fumes, hexavalent chromium, or nickel and risk of
lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol; 188: 1984–93.
Pesch B, Lehnert M, Weiss T et al. (2018) Exposure to hexava-
lent chromium in welders: results of the WELDOX II field
study. Ann Work Expo Health; 62: 351–61.
Pesch B, Weiss T, Kendzia B et al. (2012) Levels and predictors
of airborne and internal exposure to manganese and iron
among welders. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol; 22: 291–8.
Peters JM, Murphy RL, Ferris BG et al. (1973) Pulmonary
function in shipyard welders: an epidemiologic study. Arch
Environ Health; 26: 28–31.
Pocock D, Saunders CJ, Carter G. (2009) Effective control of
gas shielded arc welding fume. Buxton, UK: Health and
Safety Laboratory. pp. 1–100.
Popović O, Prokić-Cvetković R, Burzić M et al. (2014) Fume
and gas emission during arc welding: hazards and recom-
mendation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev; 37: 509–16.
Teresa M, Vasconcelos SD, Tavares HM. (1997) Trace element
concentrations in blood and hair of young apprentices of a
technical-professional school. Sci Total Environ; 205: 189–99.
Weiss T, Pesch B, Lotz A et al; WELDOX Group. (2013) Levels
and predictors of airborne and internal exposure to chro-
mium and nickel among welders—results of the WELDOX
study. Int J Hyg Environ Health; 216: 175–83.
Yi  JH. (2015) Welding-fume-induced transmission loss in
tapered optical fibers. J Korean Phys Soc; 67: 832–6.
Zhang Z, Chau PY, Lai HK et al. (2009) A review of effects of
particulate matter-associated nickel and vanadium species
on cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Int J Environ
Health Res; 19: 175–85.