Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:00 AM Page 87

WELDING RESEARCH
SUPPLEMENT TO THE WELDING JOURNAL, JUNE 2005
Sponsored by the American Welding Society and the Welding Research Council

Chemical Analysis of
Welding Fume Particles
Airborne particle size is the most important factor in determining the accuracy of a
method for chemical analysis

BY N. T. JENKINS AND T. W. EAGAR

ABSTRACT. Welding fume contains ele- doses, pure manganese is a neurotoxin those in welding fume, the most important
ments that, in their pure forms, can be haz- that can cause manganese poisoning in factor to consider is particle size. This is
ardous to worker health if inhaled or large doses. Chromium and nickel can be because a given characterization tech-
ingested. Therefore, the chemical compo- carcinogenic. Welders are exposed to nique only provides accurate data for a
sition of welding fume must be examined these elements if they inhale welding specific size range. Many previous studies
when considering fume toxicity. Various fume. Welding fume consists of metal of particle chemistry do not take this fact
chemical analysis techniques are pre- oxide particles that form during welding. into account when reporting chemical
sented and their applicability to airborne These particles are small enough to be- composition, and thus some of these stud-
particles is described. Knowledge of parti- come and remain airborne and are easily ies present misleading conclusions. This
cle size is important because a given char- inhaled. has been fairly common in welding fume
acterization technique only provides accu- Chromium, nickel, and manganese are literature, particularly with regard to stud-
rate data for a specific size range. For the not found as pure elements in welding ies involving energy dispersive spec-
purpose of comparison and illustration, fume. They are present as impure com- troscopy with scanning electron micro-
this paper uses several characterization pounds, which do not present the same scopes (SEM-EDS). For example, it is
techniques to analyze the chemistry of toxic risk as pure elements. The oxidation inaccurate to report compositional gradi-
mild steel welding fume. X-ray diffraction state of chromium and manganese also af- ents measured with SEM-EDS across
(XRD) shows that mild steel gas metal arc fects their toxicity. Trivalent chromium is fume particles that are smaller than half a
welding (GMAW) fume is predominantly inert, whereas hexavalent chromium can micrometer, because the SEM beam pen-
magnetite while the mild steel shielded be carcinogenic. There is evidence that the etrates and samples the volume of such
metal arc welding (SMAW) fume contains oxidation state of welding fume man- small particles rather than just their sur-
both a mixed alkali fluoride phase and a ganese is less toxic than that used to set face. Welding fume particles range in size
Fe-Mn oxide spinel phase. Energy disper- manganese exposure limits (Ref. 2). from 0.005 to 20 µm, although less than
sive spectrometry (EDS) was found to be Therefore both the elemental and chemi- 10–30% (depending on the welding
an effective technique for evaluating the cal composition of welding fume must be process) of the fume mass is larger than 1
elemental composition of welding fume, considered when assessing fume toxicity. µm (Ref. 3). Therefore, it is important to
and the results of the elemental analyses Information about the chemistry of carefully consider the techniques for ana-
of a few welding fumes are reported. mild steel welding fume can be used to lyzing welding fume.
compare the predicted toxicity of welding
Introduction fume to that of elements found in other in- Methods
dustries. It can also be used as an example
Although it is almost impossible to of the methods used to study particle Chemical Analysis of Particles
consume enough iron oxide to cause a chemistry in general.
toxic effect (Ref. 1), steels contain alloying When analyzing airborne particles like Table 1 lists the various analysis tech-
elements that, in their pure forms as found niques that can be used to characterize
in other industries, could be hazardous to welding fume (and other particulate mat-
worker health if inhaled or ingested. All ter). The information provided and the
KEY WORDS
steels contain manganese while stainless particle size ranges for which these tech-
steels also contain chromium and nickel. niques are applicable vary considerably.
Chromium
Although essential for health in small For further details, Refs. 2 and 4–6 contain
Fume Analysis
reviews of the various techniques used to
Health
NEIL T. JENKINS, Ph.D., is with Martinos chemically characterize particles.
Manganese
Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts In practice, there are two types of ele-
Nickel
General Hospital, Charlestown, Mass., mental characterization techniques: those
Particle Size
rood@alum.mit.edu. THOMAS W. EAGAR, that measure proportional to the atomic
Sc.D., P. E., is with Department of Materials Toxicology
number and those that measure propor-
Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute Welding Fume
tional to the atomic mass. The former pro-
of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., tweagar@mit.edu.

WELDING JOURNAL 87 -s
Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:00 AM Page 88

WELDING RESEARCH

Fig. 1 — Welding fume collection chamber.

duce data easily transformed into Fig. 2 — Transmission electron micrograph of


molar/atomic fractions, whereas the latter fume created from 2%O2-Ar-shielded gas metal
create data reported as weight percent- arc welding with 0.045-in. mild steel ER70S-3 wire
ages. If one has reliable values for each el- at 30 V and ~200 A. Fig. 3 — Transmission electron micrograph of
ement present in the specimen being ana- fume created from shielded metal arc welding with
lyzed, then one can convert from atomic 0.094-in. mild steel E7018-A electrode at 70 A.
fraction to weight percent and back. How- niques. When this happens, conversion
ever, no analysis technique is able to mea- between weight and atomic percentages is
sure every element with the same accu- only approximate, because the entire mass niques cannot be compared, except within
racy, so inconsistencies exist when is not equally characterized. Therefore, the two major groupings presented herein.
comparing the results of different tech- the elemental data from multiple tech- The techniques that report mass in-

Table 1 — Chemical Composition and Size Characterization Techniques for Particles

Characterization Method Size Range (mm) Detection Limit Notes


(NA = not applicable)
Particle Size Distribution
Impactors (various types) 0.1–20 NA Size distribution by mass chemically analyze size groups
Electric aerosol analyzer (EAA) and 0.01–1 NA Size distribution by number
differential mobility particle sizer
Aerodynamic particle sizer 0.1–25 NA Size distribution by number
Scanning electron microscope (SEM); 0.5–50 NA Particle sizes can be measured from micrographs
high resolution (HRSEM) 0.002–1
Electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) 0.5–50 NA Particle sizes can be measured from micrographs
Transmission electron microscope (TEM) 0.001–1 NA Particle sizes can be measured from micrographs
Light microscopy 1–400 NA

Elemental Composition
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) bulk 100 ppm Atomic numbers >10 very fast
Neutron activation analysis (NAA) bulk 0.01% Atomic numbers >10, requires nuclear reactor
Optical emission spectrometry bulk 1–10 ppm Atomic numbers >10
and mass spectrometry
Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) bulk 10 ppm
Energy-dispersive spectrometry with 1–50 0.1% Atomic numbers >10
SEM (SEM-EDS)
Wavelength-dispersive spectrometry 1–50 0.1% Atomic numbers >4
with EPMA (EPMA-WDS)
Energy-dispersive spectrometry with 0.01–0.5 0.1% Atomic numbers >5
TEM (TEM-EDS) scanning TEM can map element distribution at nm resolution
Proton-induced X-ray emission >5 0.1% Atomic numbers >10
spectrometry (PIXE)
Laser microprobe mass spectrometry >1 10 ppm All elements
(LAMMS)
Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) >5 10 ppm Light element capable
Auger electron spectrometry (AES) >0.1 0.1% Atomic numbers >3 lower sample must be conductive
X-ray-induced photo-electron spectrometry >5 0.1% Surface composition (3–5 nm deep)
(XPS or ESCA) contamination error common

Chemical Speciation
X-ray diffraction (XRD) bulk NA Only of crystalline material; particles must be >0.05 mm
or they will seem amorphous
X-ray-induced photoelectron spectrometry bulk NA Need appropriate standards
(XPS or ESCA) Collect on noninteracting filter
Selected area electron diffraction with TEM ~0.3 NA Only of crystalline material
(TEM-SAED)

88-s JUNE 2005


Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:01 AM Page 89

WELDING RESEARCH
stead of molar quantity are also those with (as with X-ray-induced photoelectron
the more frequent inaccuracies in report- spectrometry) can obscure the presence of
ing data. For example, iron and aluminum elements such as oxygen or fluorine. High-
cannot be determined with great accuracy powered electron beams can also break
with inductively coupled plasma mass down organic contaminants, causing a film
spectrometry (ICPMS) when in high con- of carbon to deposit that obscures the
centrations (greater than 5 wt-%). The sample. Because welding fume always
bags used to contain the sample during contains oxygen, lack of information
neutron-activated analysis (NAA) often about oxygen concentration makes it im-
contain aluminum, which distorts the possible to determine the entire
analysis of that element. The acids used to molar/mass quantity of the fume.
dissolve material for emission spectrome- Therefore the most convenient way to
try/spectroscopy often cannot dissolve analyze welding fume is by the molar frac-
everything, so such analyses are often in- tion of the metal cations. Since energy dis-
complete. The accuracy of X-ray fluores- persive spectrometry (EDS) and X-ray-
cence spectrometry (XRF) and neutron induced photoelectron spectrometry
activation analysis (NAA) is dependent on (XPS) report data in this form, these tech-
the standards used to calibrate the mea- niques are well suited for welding fume
Fig. 4 — Transmission electron micrograph of
surements. Therefore each of these meth- analysis, especially when one considers
fume created from self-shielded flux cored arc
ods has limitations. the respective size limitations with respect
welding with 0.045-in. mild steel E71T-GS wire at
When energy-dispersive spectrometry to ultrafine particles.
30 V and ~170 A.
(EDS) is used with transmission electron Since welding fume can be collected as
microscopy (TEM), the resolution of the a powder, it is easily prepared as a bulk
microanalysis should be considered. Be- material, e.g., for X-ray diffraction (XRD)
cause of electron interactions with the ma- analysis; it only becomes difficult to pre- lustration, this paper uses several charac-
terial (i.e., beam broadening), the spatial pare if one wishes to analyze individual terization techniques to analyze the chem-
resolution decreases with increasing discrete particles, although for transmis- istry of mild steel welding fume. These in-
atomic number. Thus, it may not be possi- sion electron microscopy, the small sizes clude inductively coupled mass
ble to measure the change in composition aid sample preparation enormously in spectroscopy (ICPMS), X-ray fluores-
in a very small area. However, the thinner comparison with samples that must be cence spectrometry (XRF), neutron acti-
the sample analyzed, the less beam broad- thinned by ion sputtering and similar vation analysis (NAA), X-ray-induced
ening will occur. For a review of the limi- processes. photo-electron spectrometry (XPS), X-
tations involved in electron microscopy, Therefore, there are many studies ray diffraction (XRD), and energy disper-
see Ref. 7. using X-ray diffraction and electron mi- sive spectrometry with scanning and trans-
These weaknesses are in addition to croscopy to analyze welding fume parti- mission electron microscopy (SEM-EDS,
the inability of nearly all techniques to ac- cles (Refs. 8–17). There are also several TEM-EDS).
curately analyze any elements lighter than that use surface characterization tech-
sodium. Even when a method can analyze niques, mostly XPS (Refs. 18–24). There Fume Collection
elements as light as carbon, problems like are a few that use multiple techniques
water condensation on the filament (as in (Refs. 2, 25–30) for a complete welding The fume for this study was collected in
transmission electron microscopy) or sur- fume analysis. a chamber (Fig. 1) designed by Prof. Gael
face contamination with carbon dioxide For the purpose of comparison and il- Ulrich and coworkers at the University of

Fig. 5 — X-ray diffraction spectrum of fume created from 2%O2-Ar- Fig. 6 — X-ray diffraction spectrum of fume created from shielded metal
shielded gas metal arc welding with 0.045-in. mild steel ER70S-3 wire at 30 arc welding with 0.094-in. mild steel E7018-A electrode at 70 A.
V and ~200 A.

WELDING JOURNAL 89 -s
Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:01 AM Page 90

WELDING RESEARCH
Table 2 — Parameters for Welding Fume Generation Table 3 — Composition of GMAW and FCAW
Wire Used To Create Welding Fume
Welding Parameter Condition
wt-% ER70S-3 E71T-GS
Welding Travel Speed ~16 mm/s (14 in./min) GMAW FCAW
Contact Tip to Work Distance ~19 mm (0.75 in.)
mild steel mild steel
Electrode Angle ~10 degree drag angle
Wire Diameter 0.094 in. (2.4 mm) (SMAW) or Fe 98.04 91.69
0.045 in. (1.2 mm) (GMAW, FCAW) Cr 0.046 0.190
Shielding Gas Flow Rate unshielded (SMAW, FCAW) or Ni 0.038 0.028
16.5 L/min (35 CFH) (GMAW) Cu 0.160 0.002
Shielding Gas Composition unshielded (SMAW, FCAW) or Co 0.000 0.001
Ar–2% O2 (GMAW) Mn 1.162 0.731
Work Piece Composition A500 carbon steel Si 0.551 0.270
Electrode Designations E7018-A (SMAW) Al 0.000 3.143
ER70S-3 (GMAW) Ti 0.000 0.001
E71T-GS (FCAW) Zr 0.000 0.000
Wire Feed Speed (wfs) noted Mo 0.005 0.002
Voltage positive electrode; magnitude noted K 0.000 0.025
Current steady; magnitude noted Na 0.000 0.007
Ca 0.000 0.340
Mg 0.000 0.941
Ba 0.000 2.463
Table 4 — Composition of the Metal Cations in Bulk Welding Fume with Techniques Based on O 0.000 0.160
Atomic Numbers F 0.000 <0.001
CL 0.000 0.001
Mole Fraction of Cations Only SEM-EDS TEM-EDS(a) XPS Measured with emission spectrometry and inert gas fusion.

2% O2 Ar-shielded GMAW with 0.045-in. mild steel ER70S-3 wire at 30 V, ~200 A


Fe 0.877 0.887 0.767
Mn 0.098 0.104 0.233 be enriched in the more volatile elements,
Si 0.025 0.008 <0.01 like manganese or the alkali metals, form-
SMAW with 0.094-in. mild steel E7018-A electrode at 70A ing core-shell particle morphologies
Fe 0.270 0.280 <0.01 (Refs. 18–24). This would be supported by
Mn 0.099 0.103 0.052 the presence of multiple phases as re-
Si 0.095 0.057 0.131 ported by the XRD. However, although it
K 0.276 0.295 0.575 is possible that the surface of welding
Ca 0.251 0.252 0.241 fume particles is enriched in certain ele-
Na 0.011 0.013 <0.01
ments, it is doubtful that XPS can detect
(a) Compositional average of 3 fume agglomerates this phenomenon in nanoparticles. As
Although not listed, oxygen is present in all fume, and fluorine is present in SMAW fume. noted in Table 1, XPS is only effective an-
alyzing the surfaces of individual particles
larger than 5 µm. When it is used to ana-
New Hampshire. The design is published Results and Discussion lyze the bulk chemistry of particles that
in a thesis and a paper (Refs. 31, 32) in can be as small as 5 nm, it is not clear what
which an excellent critique of fume collec- Figures 2–4 show TEM images of weld- surface XPS is analyzing, because the XPS
tion methods can also be found. ing fume agglomerates. Tables 3–6 and beam could be interacting with multiple
A weld was laid on a cylindrical pipe Figs. 5 and 6 contain chemical data from particles. Therefore XPS is not a reliable
about 25 cm (10 in.) in diameter and 30 welding fumes collected from mild steel analysis technique for the bulk or surface
cm (12 in.) long. The pipe rotated inside electrodes using shielded metal arc weld- chemistry of ultrafine particles. It does,
a chamber that moved horizontally ing (SMAW), gas metal arc welding however, provide data on chemical bonds
around the pipe. An arc welding gun was (GMAW), and flux cored arc welding that can be used to determine the valence
inserted into the chamber through a hole (FCAW). states of the elements it detects.
so that a weld bead could be laid on the The results from various chemical Another possibility for the difference
pipe forming a spiral as the pipe rotated characterization techniques can be com- in composition is that XPS analysis may
and as the chamber moved transversely. pared. Despite the extremely different preferentially report the composition of
The power source was a primary inverter resolution of the two types of electron mi- large particles, those near 5 µm in diame-
machine current-rated at 500 A/40 V at croscopy as shown in Table 4, and despite ter. It is possible that liquid weld slag
100% duty cycle. the much larger sampling of particles in forms micrometer-sized spatter droplets,
Negative pressure was applied to the SEM-EDS, the compositions reported by or “microspatter,” more readily than liq-
chamber so that fume could be collected TEM-EDS and SEM-EDS are very simi- uid metal does (Ref. 3). Slag microspatter
while the pipe was welded, and shortly lar for both GMAW and SMAW fumes. contains more manganese and silicon than
thereafter. This pulled the fume out of the X-ray-induced photoelectron spec- microspatter formed from liquid metal.
chamber at a rate of ~2 L/min (4 ft3/h) trometry (XPS) reports quite a different The larger particles in welding fume
through filters (0.2 µm Corning [Nucleo- composition. There are two possible rea- would therefore have a composition more
pore] PC filter, 37 mm diameter) sta- sons. XPS probes only the top few like that reported by XPS than by EDS.
tioned approximately 30 cm (12 in.) above nanometers of the surface of the analyzed This theory could be tested by separating
the arc. The fume was then removed from material. So, as previous research on weld- fume in size groups and analyzing sepa-
the filters for analysis. Table 2 lists the ing fume with XPS has reported, the sur- rately with XPS or other analytical
welding parameters used. face of the individual fume particles may techniques.

90-s JUNE 2005


Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:01 AM Page 91

WELDING RESEARCH
Table 5 — Composition by Weight of Bulk Table 6 — X-ray Diffraction of Mild Steel GMAW and SMAW Fume
Welding Fume with Techniques Based on
Atomic Masses Chemical Approximate Approximate
Phases Crystalline Amorphous
wt-% ICPMS(a) XRF NAA Detected Amount of Amount of
2% O2 Ar-shielded GMAW with 0.045-in. Sample(%) Sample (%)
mild steel ER70S-3 wire at 30 V, ~200A GMAW Fe3O4 (spinel) 64 36
Fe 37.8 55.0 NA (ER70S-3, 30 V 300 in./min
Mn 8.8 12.8 NA
Si NA NA NA SMAW (K, Na, Ca, Mn) F2 (fluoride) 71 29
Cu 0.9 1.1 NA (E7018-A 3/32 in., 70A) MnFe2O4 (spinel)
Self-shielded FCAW with 0.045-in. mild steel
E71T-GS wire at 30 V, ~170A See Figs. 5 and 6 for X-ray diffraction spectra
Fe 18.1 23.7 32.4
Mn 0.5 2.7 1.6
Ba NA NA 9.8
Mg NA NA 8.8 welding fume. This also agrees with the sents a very small sample of individual
Al 56.3 NA (b) XRD data presented herein. Manganese fume particles). There may be a change in
(a)% SMAW fume undissolved in acid: 25 in welding fume is present as part of the chemistry with particle size that is not de-
(b) aluminum present strongly but obscured by aluminum in spinel phase. Such phases contain metal tected by an analysis that averages over
sample bag.
NA = not analyzed because of experimental difficulties. ions (e.g., predominately iron mixed with many particles simultaneously. This is im-
Oxygen and fluorine were also not analyzed and are not the manganese) that are +2 or +3. portant for inhalation toxicology, because
listed here because they are anions.
The amorphous fraction reported by particles of different sizes are inhaled dif-
X-ray diffraction may be generated by ferently (Ref. 37). If the chemistry varies
small nanoparticles in the welding fume with particle size, the reported bulk chem-
Thus, of the three analysis techniques because all the atoms in particles smaller istry may not be an accurate average of all
reported in Table 4, it is probable that than 50 nm are essentially on the surface, particles, because some analytical tech-
SEM-EDS and TEM-EDS provide the and therefore cannot form standard crys- niques may sample data more strongly
most accurate measure of the mole frac- tal lattices. Such particles are essentially from certain particle size groups than
tion of the elements in the fume. amorphous. others.
The atomic-mass-based analysis tech- Previous X-ray diffraction studies have Because of the size-related complica-
niques listed in Table 5 yielded a fairly reported many phases in welding fume tions of chemically analyzing welding
broad set of data. It should again be em- and have suggested that each single fume fume particles that range from a few
phasized that these data cannot be com- particle contained three or more phases. nanometers to a few micrometers (Ref.
pared with the previously discussed data This is obviously not the case for ultrafine 38), a better procedure would be to sepa-
from atomic-number-based analysis tech- particles; a particle less than a micrometer rate welding fume into size groups and to
niques. As noted, without data for each el- in diameter cannot contain many phases analyze the size groups separately. This
ement present in the fume (and, as noted, because its small volume will homogenize can be done with a cascade impactor (Ref.
the data for oxygen and other anions are very rapidly. In addition, because it is dif- 39), with stages separating fume into
usually lacking) one cannot convert be- ficult for XRD to detect crystals that are groups of particles. A suggested grouping
tween molar fraction and weight percent. smaller than 50 nm, a particle would have would separate particles smaller than 0.1
Secondly, the weight percent reported to be at least half a micrometer to contain µm from those 0.1 to 0.5 µm, those 0.5 to
here represents the total fume, not just the multiple detectable phases. Most welding 1 µm, and those larger than 1 µm.
metal cations, as in Table 4. Also, these fume particles are smaller than that. There are five reasons for this sug-
methods can be imprecise because of cal- Transmission electron microscopy shows gested grouping. First, most impactors
ibration sensitivities. Nevertheless, the that fume can be heterogeneous with cannot distinguish between particles
values for manganese from reports by many phases contained individually in smaller than 0.1 µm (Table 1). Second, the
other researchers (Refs. 33–35) vary be- separate particles (Ref. 3). Therefore, if particles that deposit in the alveolar pas-
tween 1 and 15 wt-% of the total welding XRD reports that there are five phases, sages of the lung when inhaled are pre-
fume, hence, the data presented herein this means that there are at least five dif- dominantly smaller than 0.1 µm, while the
are believed to be typical. ferent types of particles, not that there is inhaled particles that deposit in the nose
From the XRD spectra, it is clear that one particle that has each of the five and throat are generally larger than 1 mi-
the GMAW fume is predominately mag- phases contained in an extremely small crometer (Ref. 40). Separating these size
netite (an oxide spinel phase dominated volume. It is possible that large particles groups aids inhalation toxicology analysis.
by iron, but which can contain manganese (greater than 100 nm) that have coalesced Third, analysis techniques tend to have an
impurities), while the SMAW fume con- or sintered from smaller particles may upper or lower boundary of 0.5 µm (Table
tains both a complex alkali-alkali earth contain multiple phases (Ref. 36). It is also 1). Fourth, separating it into four groups
fluoride phase and an oxide spinel phase possible that some large particles have a instead of two helps prevent overloading
containing a mixture of manganese and core-shell morphology with a metal oxide on the impactor stages. Fifth, airborne
iron. This agrees with previous XRD stud- core and a slag exterior; this may be the particles smaller than 0.1 µm are formed
ies of welding fume (Refs. 8–17). Voitke- case with the SMAW fume (Ref. 3). How- through vapor condensation, while air-
vich (Ref. 23) used X-ray photoelectron ever, it is doubtful there are particles with borne particles larger than 1 micrometer
spectroscopy (XPS) and X-ray diffraction more than two phases present. are created through liquid droplet ejec-
(XRD), while Minni et al. (Ref. 24) used The analyses presented herein did not tion. Particles from 0.5 to 1 µm are a mix-
electron spectroscopy to study welding take different particle sizes into account; ture of the two types of particles (Ref. 3).
fume. They concluded that Mn2+, or therefore, the results represent the bulk These formation paths strongly influence
Mn3+, as opposed to Mn4+, are the most only (with the exception of TEM-EDS, the particle chemistry, so it is important to
probable oxidation states of manganese in where the reported composition repre- separate them and to analyze both types of

WELDING JOURNAL 91 -s
Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:01 AM Page 92

WELDING RESEARCH
particles with multiple techniques. separating fume into groups of particles. (Svarochnoe Proizvodstvo), 31(3): 43–45.
The smallest two groups can be ana- The smallest groups can be analyzed with 9. Pilyankevich, A. N., and Im, N. 1984.
lyzed with transmission electron mi- transmission electron microscopy, energy Electron microscopic examination of the solid
croscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, dispersive spectrometry, and electron dif- phase of the fumes formed in electric arc weld-
and electron diffraction. The largest two fraction. The largest groups can be ana- ing. Welding Production (Svarochnoe Proizvod-
can be analyzed with scanning electron lyzed with scanning electron microscopy, stvo), 31(3): 46–47.
microscopy, energy dispersive spectrome- energy dispersive spectrometry, and X-ray 10. Hyvarinen, H.–K., Tanninen, V.–P.,
try, and X-ray diffraction. Each size group diffraction. All groups can be analyzed by Grekula, A., and Kalliomaki, P.–L. 1985. Profile
should also be digested in acid and ana- spectrometry of acid-digested fume. In fitting analysis of the X-ray powder diffraction
lyzed with emission spectroscopy. Care this way, welding fume chemistry would pattern of a complicated metal aerosol. Physica
must be taken to dissolve all of the fume best be characterized by size and by bulk Status Solidi A—Applied Research, 90(1):
in the acid; otherwise, the results will not (which would be a simple mass-weighted K15–K18.
be valid. average of the chemistry of the size 11. Tanninen, V. P., Mikkola, E., Hyvarinen,
groups). This would aid in determining the H. K., Grekula, A., and Kalliomaki, P. L. 1985.
Conclusions toxicity of welding fume inhalation and Determination of the valence of the iron in
shed light into how welding fume forms. welding fumes with the k-beta emission-spec-
Various chemical analysis techniques trum. X–Ray Spectrometry, 14(4): 188–191.
are presented in this paper and their ap- Acknowledgments 12. Tanninen, V. P., Hyvarinen, H. K.,
plicability to welding fume particles is dis- Grekula, A., and Kalliomaki, P. L. 1985. Exper-
cussed. The range in their size complicates The funding for this project was pro- imental improvements in analysis of aerosol
the analysis of airborne particles like those vided by a grant from the U.S. Navy, Of- samples by X-ray-powder diffraction. Journal of
in welding fume. Particle size is the great- fice of Naval Research. Dr. Nicholas Aerosol Science, 16(5): 373–378.
est factor when determining the utility of Lawryk of the National Institute of Occu- 13. Kobayashi, M., and Tsutsumi, S. 1986.
an analytical method. If this is not taken pational Health and Safety provided the Investigation on crystalline materials in welding
into account, erroneous conclusions can XRF analysis of the welding fume, Dr. fumes of covered electrodes. Proceedings of the
be easily made. Krishna Murthy of the Harvard School of International Conference on Health Hazards and
There are the two groups of elemental Public Health performed the ICPMS. Biological Effects of Welding Fumes and Gases,
characterization techniques: those that re- Libby Shaw, Joseph Adario, Michael eds. R. M. Stern, A. Berlin, A. Fletcher, K.
port molar quantities and those that re- Ames, Donald Galler, and Dr. Anthony Hemminki, J. Jarvisalo, and J. Peto, pp. 77–80,
port atomic mass. The elemental data Garrett-Reed of Massachusetts Institute Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica.
from various analytical techniques cannot of Technology assisted with XPS, XRD, 14. Tanninen, V. P., Hyvarinen, H.–K.,
be easily compared, except within these NAA, SEM, and TEM, respectively. Grekula, A., and Kalliomaki, P.–L. 1986. X-ray
two groups. There seem to be fewer com- diffraction and X-ray emission spectroscopy in
plications with the molar analytical tech- References chemical compound analysis of welding fumes.
niques. Because of this and because oxy- Proceedings of the International Conference on
gen analysis of small particles is difficult, 1. Antonini, J. M., Krishna Murthy, G. G., Health Hazards and Biological Effects of Welding
the most convenient way to analyze the el- Rogers, R. A., Albert, R., Eagar, T. W., Ulrich, Fumes and Gases, eds. R. M. Stern, A. Berlin, A.
emental composition of welding fume G. D., and Brain, J. D. 1998. How welding Fletcher, K. Hemminki, J. Jarvisalo, and J. Peto,
(which is comprised of oxides and halides) fumes affect the welder. Welding Journal, pp. 117–131, Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica.
is by the molar fraction of the metal 77(10): 55–59. 15. Farrants, G., Reith, A., Schuler, B., and
cations. This is most easily done with 2. Voitkevich, V. 1995. Welding Fumes: For- Feren, K. 1988. A simple, direct method for the
SEM-EDS and TEM-EDS. mation, Properties and Biological Effects. Cam- collection of particles from air samples for
Other techniques used on welding bridge, England: Abington Publishing. transmission electron microscopy and digital
fume by previous researchers such as XPS, 3. Jenkins, N. T. 2003. Chemistry of Air- image analysis. Journal of Microscopy–Oxford,
AES, XRF, and PIXE, yield data that are borne Particles from Metallurgical Processing. 149: 159–164.
problematic to analyze. However, XRD is Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass., Massa- 16. Karlsen, J. T., Farrants, G., Torgrimsen,
well suited for determining the phase chusetts Institute of Technology. T., and Reith, A. 1992. Chemical composition
composition of welding fume. 4 . Kodas, T. T., and Hampden–Smith, M. J. and morphology of welding fume particles and
It was shown that mild steel GMAW 1999. Aerosol Processing of Materials. New York: grinding dusts. American Industrial Hygiene As-
fume is predominately magnetite in which Wiley–VCH. sociation Journal, 53(5): 290–297.
the cations are approximately 10% Mn. 5. Ortner, H. M., Hoffmann, P., Stademann, 17. Rodelsperger, K., Bruckel, B., Barbisan,
Mild steel SMAW fume contains both a F. J., Weinbruch, S., and Wentzel, M. 1998. P., Walter, D., and Woitowitz, H. 2000. The
complex alkali-alkali earth fluoride phase Chemical characterization of environmental amount of ultrafine particles in welding fume
and an oxide spinel phase. The metal and industrial particulate samples. Analyst, 123: aerosols. Staub, Reinhaltung Der Luft, 60(3):
cation fraction of that fume was approxi- 833–842. 79–82.
mately 27% Fe, 10% Mn, 10% S, 28% K, 6. Willeke, K., and Baron, P. A., eds. 1993. 18. Minni, E., Gustafsson, T. E., Koponen,
25% Ca. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, M., and Kalliomaki, P.– L. 1984. A study of the
The analyses presented herein did not and Applications. New York: Van Nostrand chemical structure of particles in the welding
take different particle sizes into account; Reinhold. fumes of mild and stainless steel. Journal of
therefore, these results represent the bulk 7. Hren, J. J., Goldsten, J. I., and Joy, D. C., Aerosol Science, 15(1): 57–68.
only. However, it has been shown that eds. 1979. Introduction to Analytical Electron 19. Tanninen, V. P., Hyvarinen, H. K.,
fume can be heterogeneous with many Microscopy. New York: Plenum Press. Grekula, A., and Ristolainen, E. 1985. Surface
phases contained individually in separate 8. Golovatyuk, A., Levchenko, O., Veblaya, enrichment of the elements in welding fume
particles. It would prove useful to separate T., Zykov, G., Kharchenko, N., and Levchenko, particles analyzed by auger-electron spec-
welding fume into size groups and to ana- L. 1984. Application of physical methods for ex- troscopy. Ultramicroscopy, 17(2): 182–182.
lyze the size groups separately. This can be amining the composition of the solid compo- 20. Tandon, R. K., Payling, R., Chenhall, B.
done with a cascade impactor, with stages nent of welding fumes. Welding Production E., Crisp, P. T., Ellis, J., and Baker, R. S. 1985.

92 -s JUNE 2005
Jenkins--6/05 5/9/05 11:01 AM Page 93

WELDING RESEARCH
Application of X–ray photoelectron spec- Columbus Laboratories. Miami, Fla.: AWS Re- and Suga, T. 1983. Investigations on chemical
troscopy to the analysis of stainless-steel weld- search Committee on Safety and Health. composition of welding fumes. Welding Journal,
ing aerosols. Applications of Surface Science, 26. Jenkins, N., Moreton, J., Oakley, P. J., 62(7): 190s to 196s.
20(4): 527–537. and Stevens, S. M. 1981. Welding Fume — 35. Tandon, R. K., Ellis, J., Crisp, P. T.,
21. Grekula, A., Ristolainen, E., Tanninen, Sources, Characteristics, Control, vol. 1–2, Cam- Baker, R. S., and Chenhall, B. E. 1986. Chemi-
V. P., Hyvarinen, H. K., and Kalliomaki, P. L. bridge, England, The Abington Hall. cal investigation of welding fumes from hard-
1986. Surface and bulk chemical analysis on 27. Fasiska, E. J., Wagenblast, H. W., and facing and HSLA-steel electrodes. Welding
metal aerosols generated by manual metal arc Nasta, M. 1983. Characterization of Arc Welding Journal, 66(9): 231-s to 236-s.
welding of stainless steel. Journal of Aerosol Sci- Fume, Miami, Fla.: American Welding Society. 36. Ehrman, S. H., Friedlander, S. K., and
ence, 17: 1–9. 28. Iwamoto, N., Umesaki, N., Kamai, M., Zachariah, M. R. 1999. Phase segregation in bi-
22. Minni, E. 1986. Assessment of the use of Kobayashi, M., Tsutsumi, S., Taga, M., and nary SiO2/TiO2 and SiO2/Fe2O3 nanoparticle
electron spectroscopy and sputtering for stud- Kume, A. 1984. Behavior of manganese in aerosols formed in a premixed flame. Journal of
ies of solid fume particles. Proceedings of the In- welding fume (i). Transactions of JWRI (Japan- Materials Research, 14(12): 4551–4561.
ternational Conference on Health Hazards and ese Welding Research Institute), 13: 21–26. 37. Hewett, P. 1995. Estimation of regional
Biological Effects of Welding Fumes and Gases, 29. Tandon, R. K., Crisp, P. T., Ellis, J., pulmonary deposition and exposure for fumes
eds. R. M. Stern, A. Berlin, A. Fletcher, K. Baker, R. S., and Chenhall, B. E. 1984. Chemi- from SMAW and GMAW mild-steel and stain-
Hemminki, J. Jarvisalo, and J. Peto pp. 89–92, cal investigation of some electric arc welding less-steel consumables. American Industrial Hy-
Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica. fumes and their potential health effects. Aus- giene Association Journal, 56(2): 136–142.
23. Voitkevich, V. G. 1988. Etude, par spec- tralian Welding Research, 13: 55–60. 38. Zimmer, A. T., Baron, P. A., and Biswas,
troscopie photoelectronique a rayons X, de 30. Eichhorn, F., and Oldenburg, T. 1986. P. 2002. The influence of operating parameters
l’heterogeneite de la composition des partic- Untersuchung der Scheissrauchentstehung beim on number-weighted aerosol size distribution
ules de fumees de soudage [Investigation of Schweissen mit mittel– und hochlegierten generated from a gas metal arc welding process.
heterogeneity of welding fume particle compo- Zusatzwerkstoffen. Duesseldorf, DVS. Journal of Aerosol Science, 33(3): 519–531.
sition by the method of X-ray photoelectron 31. Quimby, J. 1997. Fume Formation Rates 39. Thermo Andersen 2002. Operator Man-
spectroscopy]. Welding in the World, Le Soudage in Gas Metal Arc Welding. M.S. thesis, Univer- ual: 1 ACFM Nonviable Sample Series 20-800.
Dans Le Monde, 26: 108–111. sity of New Hampshire. Thermo Andersen, Symrna, Ga.
24. Minni, E., Hofmann, S., and Sivonen, S. 32. Quimby, J. B., and Ulrich, G. D. 1999. 40. International Commission on Radiolog-
J. 1990. An AES study of particles in the weld- Fume formation rates in gas–shielded metal arc ical Protection. 1966. ICRP task group on lung
ing fumes of mild and stainless steel. Surface welding. Welding Journal, 78(4): 142–149. dynamics, depositions and retention models for
and Interface Analysis, 16(1–12): 563–564. 33. Castner, H. R., and Null, C. L. 1998. internal dosimetry of the human respiratory
25. Evans, R. M., Flanigan, L. J., Howden, Chromium, nickel and manganese in shipyard tract. Health Physics, 21: 173–207.
D. G., Lee, K. W., Luce, R. G., Martin, D. C., welding fumes. Welding Journal, 77(6): 223-s to
Pattee, H. E., and Robinson, R. E. 1979. Fumes 231-s.
and Gases in the Welding Environment, Batelle- 34. Kobayashi, M., Maki, S., Hashimoto, Y.,

CAN WE TALK?
The Welding Journal staff encourages an exchange of ideas with you, our readers. If you’d like to ask a question, share an idea or
voice an opinion, you can call, write, e-mail or fax. Staff e-mail addresses are listed below, along with a guide to help you interact with
the right person.
Publisher/Editor Production Editor Peer Review Coordinator
Andrew Cullison Zaida Chavez Doreen Kubish
cullison@aws.org, Extension 249 zaida@aws.org, Extension 265 doreen@aws.org, Extension 275
Article Submissions Design and Production Peer Review of Research Papers

Senior Editor Advertising Sales Director


Mary Ruth Johnsen Rob Saltzstein
mjohnsen@aws.org, Extension 238 salty@aws.org, Extension 243
Feature Articles Advertising Sales Welding Journal Dept.
550 N.W. LeJeune Rd.
Associate Editor Advertising Production Coordinator Miami, FL 33126
Howard Woodward Frank Wilson (800) 443-9353
woodward@aws.org, Extension 244 fwilson@aws.org, Extension 465 FAX (305) 443-7404
Society News Advertising Production
Personnel
Advertising Sales &
Assistant Editor Promotion Coordinator
Kristin Campbell Lea Garrigan
kcampbell@aws.org, Extension 257 garrigan@aws.org, Extension 220
New Products Production and Promotion
News of the Industry

WELDING JOURNAL 93 -s

Вам также может понравиться