Welding and Thermal Cutting Fume –

Potential for Occupational Health Issues

Position Paper

Association number: A0017462L

ABN: 50 423 289 752
Approved by Council: April 2022
Prepared by: AIOH Exposure Assessment Committee
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENISTS INC (AIOH) ........................................................................... 3

WORKPLACE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT .................................................................. 3
STATEMENT OF POSITION REGARDING AIOH POSITION PAPERS ................................................................................... 3
Consultation with AIOH members.................................................................................................................................. 3
Forty-Second AIOH Council ............................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 4
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
AIOH POSITION ON WELDING AND THERMAL CUTTING FUME - POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ISSUES ..... 5
Key messages ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Background......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. The different welding and thermal cutting processes ........................................................................................ 6
3. What are welding and thermal cutting fumes? .................................................................................................. 6
4. How do we measure it? ...................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Hazards associated with welding fumes ............................................................................................................. 8
6. Potential for exposure ........................................................................................................................................ 9
7. Risk of health effects ........................................................................................................................................ 10
8. Available controls ............................................................................................................................................. 11
9. Current exposure standards ............................................................................................................................. 11
10. AIOH recommendation..................................................................................................................................... 12
References and sources of additional information ...................................................................................................... 12
Attachment 1: Workplace Exposure Standards for Welding / Thermal Cutting Fume (Particulate) Contaminants .... 15
Attachment 2: Effect of process, consumable and parent metal composition on the assessment of exposure......... 16

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENISTS INC (AIOH)
The Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists Inc (AIOH) is the association that represents professional occupational hygienists in
Australia. Occupational hygiene is the science and art of anticipation, recognition, evaluation, and control of hazards in the workplace
and the environment. Occupational hygienists specialise in the assessment and control of:

• Chemical hazards (including dusts such as silica, carcinogens such as arsenic, fibrous dusts such as asbestos, gases such as chlorine,
irritants such as ammonia and organic vapours such as petroleum hydrocarbons);
• Physical hazards (heat and cold, noise, vibration, ionising radiation, lasers, microwave radiation, radiofrequency radiation, ultra-
violet light, visible light); and
• Biological hazards (bacteria, endotoxins, fungi, viruses, zoonoses).

Therefore, the AIOH has a keen interest in the potential for workplace exposures to welding and thermal cutting fume, as its members
are the professionals most likely to be asked to identify associated hazards and assess any exposure risks.

The Institute was formed in 1979 and incorporated in 1988. An elected governing Council, comprising the President, President Elect,
Secretary, Treasurer and three Councillors, manages the affairs of the Institute. The AIOH is a member of the International Occupational
Hygiene Association (IOHA).

The overall objective of the Institute is to help ensure that workplace health hazards are eliminated or controlled. It seeks to achieve this
by:

• Promoting the profession of occupational hygiene in industry, government and the general community.
• Improving the practice of occupational hygiene and the knowledge, competence and standing of its practitioners.
• Providing a forum for the exchange of occupational hygiene information and ideas.
• Promoting the application of occupational hygiene principles to improve and maintain a safe and healthy working environment
for all.
• Representing the profession nationally and internationally.

More information is available at our website – http://www.aioh.org.au.

WORKPLACE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT

The AIOH established the Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee to provide expert guidance and comment to the exposure
standards setting process at a State and National level and internationally where appropriate, through development of AIOH Position
Papers, AIOH guidance publications or comment on relevant Standards, Regulations and Codes of Practice. The Committee's remit is to
confirm that the exposure standards numbers, and Standards and Codes of Practice, are changed for valid occupational hygiene and
scientific reasons.

STATEMENT OF POSITION REGARDING AIOH POSITION PAPERS

The AIOH is not a standard setting body. Through its Position Papers, the AIOH seeks to provide relevant information on substances of
interest where there is uncertainty about existing Australian exposure standards. This is done primarily through a review of the existing
published, peer-reviewed scientific literature but may include anecdotal evidence based on the practical experience of certified AIOH
members. The Position Papers attempt to recommend a health-based guidance exposure value that can be measured; that is, it is
technically feasible to assess workplace exposures against the derived exposure value. It does not consider economic or engineering
feasibility. As far as reasonably possible, the AIOH formulates a recommendation on the level of exposure that the typical worker can
experience without significant risk of adverse health effects.

Any recommended guidance exposure value should not be viewed as a fine line between safe and unsafe exposures. They also do not
represent quantitative estimates of risk at different exposure levels or by different routes of exposure. Any recommended exposure
value should be used as a guideline by professionals trained in the practice of occupational hygiene to assist in the control of health
hazards.

CONSULTATION WITH AIOH MEMBERS

AIOH activities are managed through committees drawn from hygienists nationally. This Position Paper has been prepared by the
Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee, with comments sought from AIOH members generally and active consultation with
particular members selected for their known interest and/or expertise in this area. Various AIOH members were contributors in the
development of this Position Paper.

Key contributors included: Ian Firth, Zachary du Preez, Linda Apthorpe, Alan Rogers, Ross Di Corleto and Robert Golec.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 3 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 FORTY-SECOND AIOH COUNCIL
President: Kate Cole (NSW)
President Elect: Tracey Bence (WA)
Secretary: Neil Goulding (VIC)
Treasurer: Aleks Todorovic (VIC)
Councillors: Melanie Windust (VIC), Kelly Johnstone (QLD), Candice Dix (WA)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AIOH Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

COH® Certified Occupational Hygienist

COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

FCAW Flux-cored arc welding

GMAW Gas metal arc welding

GTAW Gas tungsten arc welding

HSE Health & Safety Executive, UK

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

IIW International Institute of Welding

IOM Institute of Occupational Medicine

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LOD Limit of Detection

MAG Metal active gas

MIG Metal inert gas

MMAW Manual metal arc welding

mg/m3 milligrams (10-3 grams) per cubic metre

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NOS / NOC Not Otherwise Specified / Classified

NSW New South Wales

OEL Occupational Exposure Limit

PAPR Powered air-purifying respirator

PAW Plasma arc welding

SDS Safety data sheet

SMAW Shielded metal arc welding

STEL Short-term exposure limit

SWA Safe Work Australia

TIG Tungsten-inert gas

TLV® Threshold limit value®

TWA Time Weighted Average

WES Workplace Exposure Standard

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 4 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 DEFINITIONS
• Hazard: Means potential to cause harm.
• Risk: Means probability of harm actually occurring.
• Fume: Vapourised materials (e.g. metals) that are generally <0.05 µm in size and condense together. Welding and other thermal
processes produce emissions which contain fumes and various gases. Note that when the welding industry talk about fume, they
also include reference to the gases formed in the welding or allied process as well as remnant shielding gas. In this paper, the focus
is on welding emissions as fume particulate.
• Limit of detection (LOD): The lowest concentration of a substance that can be feasibly determined to be statistically different (e.g. 3
times the standard deviation) from a sample that contains none of the substance (i.e. a blank sample).
• Respirable dust fraction: Contains particles smaller than 10 microns, with a mass median diameter of 4 microns. It is fine enough to
be invisible to the naked eye and can be breathed deeply into the lungs.
• Inhalable dust fraction: Contains particles smaller than 100 microns and approximates to the fraction of airborne material that
enters the nose and mouth during breathing.

AIOH POSITION ON WELDING AND THERMAL CUTTING FUME - POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ISSUES

Key messages
• Welding and thermal cutting fume consists of very fine particles of metal oxides, silicates and fluorides depending on the composition
of the metal being welded, the wire or electrode and any coatings.
• Welding and thermal cutting fume exposures are common in Australian workplaces.
• Welding and thermal cutting fume is a known human carcinogen and hazardous to the respiratory system. It may also cause kidney
cancer.
• Safe Work Australia (SWA) currently has a welding fume WES of 5 mg/m3 (measured as inhalable fraction) and proposed that this
WES be discontinued, instead relying on the WES values for the individual hazardous contaminants in the fume.
• AIOH believe that exposures to welding and thermal cutting fume should be as low as reasonably practicable and recommend using
a trigger value of 1 mg/m3 for inhalable welding and thermal cutting fume, coupled with compliance with WES values for the
individual elemental hazardous contaminants in the fume, utilised to implement controls.
• Health monitoring should be a part of the health management program.
• AIOH recommends stakeholders also use existing industry-specific guidance / best practice approaches with a strong focus on using
processes and controls that reduce welding and thermal cutting fume, supplemented with appropriate training of workers to use
welding and thermal cutting procedures to minimise exposure to fumes.

Summary
This Position Paper was compiled to provide guidance on the assessment, evaluation, and control of occupational exposure to welding
and thermal cutting fume, with emphasis on use of a trigger value for fume which is Not Otherwise Specified / Classified (NOS / NOC).
Welding and thermal cutting fumes are produced as by-products of welding and thermal cutting processes. These fumes produce acute,
chronic, and carcinogenic exposure risks and are heavily dependent on the welding process, materials/consumables used which produce
various constituents in the fumes. These constituents may include, but are not limited to, aluminium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,
manganese, iron oxide, vanadium, zinc, and copper as well as solder pyrolysis products (rosins). In addition, gases including carbon
monoxide, phosphine, phosgene, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide may be present.
Critical effects of exposure can include irritation of the upper respiratory tract (nose and throat), tightness in the chest, asphyxiation,
asthma, metal fume fever, lung damage, bronchitis, cancer, pneumonia, and emphysema. Welding and thermal cutting fumes are
classified as known human carcinogens (Group 1), upgraded from possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in 1989 (IARC, 2018).
As part of their review of Australian workplace exposure standard (WES) values for airborne contaminants, SWA (SWA, 2020a)
recommended no health-based time-weighted (TWA) WES for generic welding fume (NOC), instead relying on the respective WESs of
the individual constituents in the fumes. The intention was that the individual WES values would be utilised to determine worker
exposure and to establish when controls are required to be implemented or improved. Following industry consultation, SWA has
maintained the current generic welding fume TWA-WES value of 5 mg/m3, measured as inhalable fraction.
The AIOH believe that exposures to welding and thermal cutting fume should be maintained as low as reasonably practicable. There is
existing industry-specific guidance / best practice approaches, which should be used. This Position Paper proposes that the current TWA-
WES should be lowered to 1 mg/m3 (as inhalable fraction), to be used as a trigger value to implement fume controls. The WES values
for the individual constituents in the fumes must also be complied with.
The AIOH have several recommendations which are noted above and provided in more detail in the body of this document.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 5 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 1. Background
The welding and thermal cutting of metals and alloys are well established processes where the associated health and safety hazards and
their controls are well understood, if not always fully implemented. Welders are potentially exposed to metal fume and gases, ultraviolet
radiation, noise, electric shock, burns and other hazards. Publications by Weld Australia (2020), Safe Work Australia (SWA, 2020b) and
the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI, 2003) provide details of the health and safety hazards of welding and thermal
cutting and appropriate controls. This Position Paper focusses on the airborne contaminant hazards, principally the volatilised fume.
The recent re-classification of all welding fume as a known human carcinogen (Class 1 Carcinogen) (IARC, 2018) has focused more
attention on the control of airborne welding fume in the workplace.
Safe Work Australia (SWA, 2020a) recommended to remove the single health-based time-weighted average (TWA) workplace exposure
standard (WES) for welding fume (NOC). They had suggested the withdrawal of the current TWA-WES of 5 mg/m3, as part of their review
of WESs for airborne contaminants. Instead, they recommended that the respective WESs of the individual constituents in the fumes
be used to determine worker exposure. This is consistent with the recommendation from the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®). However, following industry consultation SWA has decided to maintain the current TWA-WES value of 5
mg/m3 pending further research.
It is essential that the individual WESs for welding and thermal cutting fume constituents (e.g. chromium VI, manganese, etc) are both
health-based using realistic toxicological data, and measurable.

2. The different welding and thermal cutting processes

Welding is the process of joining metals through coalescence, by high heat or pressure or both (SWA, 2020b; American Welding Society,
2010). Approximately 80 different types of welding and allied processes for commercial use have been identified. However, the main
types of welding include:
• Manual metal arc welding (MMA or MMAW), also known as shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) in the USA, flux shielded arc
welding or stick welding
• Gas metal arc welding (GMAW), sometimes referred to by its subtypes metal inert gas (MIG) welding or metal active gas (MAG)
welding, depending on the shielding gas used. MAG welding is an ISO/European term used for GMAW welding where the shield
gas is active, usually an argon-based mix containing CO2 and/or small addition of oxygen. It is colloquially (and incorrectly)
referred to as “MIG” in Australia by many welders. MIG is GMAW welding with an inert shielding gas such as argon (Bruce
Cannon, Weld Australia, pers com)
• Tungsten-inert gas (TIG) or gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)
• Flux-cored arc welding (FCAW), including self-shielded, and gas shielded variants
• Friction welding
• Spot (resistance) welding, and
• Plasma arc welding (PAW).
Brazing and ’silver’ soldering is also included.
Cutting and gouging methods include gas (oxy fuel) cutting, air-carbon arc gouging 1, oxygen lance, laser cutting, spark erosion and
plasma. Plasma and oxy-fuel are the two most common thermal cutting processes.

3. What are welding and thermal cutting fumes?

Particulates generated during welding and thermal cutting are very small. In general, they have a diameter of less than 1 µm (in most
cases < 0.1 µm; termed ultrafine particles), therefore they are respirable and called “welding fume”. Besides individual particles, chains
and agglomerates are also formed by coagulation (Spiegel-Ciobanu et al, 2020) when the fume is generated. While all welding and
thermal cutting processes generate fume, the plume may not be visible to the welder, or with some processes, the observer (Weld
Australia, 2021).
Welding and thermal cutting processes generate a variety of hazardous substances that can be absorbed by the human body (GMBl,
2020; Spiegel-Ciobanu et al, 2020). The composition of the substances being welded or cut, including coating and/or surface
contaminants (e.g. greases, oils etc), the type of welding (e.g. filler metal & flux) and the way they are conducted can all play a role in
the types and composition of airborne volatiles produced. Much of the materials in the welding fume come from the consumable
electrode (Weld Australia, 2021).
Particulates are produced only in the immediate vicinity of the heat source. They are largely confined to the plume of heated gases
which rises from the weld zone (Weld Australia, 2021), but can accumulate in poorly ventilated areas. While fumes derived from metals
or their compounds mostly occur as oxides, the chemical properties of welding fumes can be quite complex (Table 1).

1
Air-carbon arc gouging produces extremely high levels of fume and noise, as well as carbon monoxide (David Hamilton, pers com).

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 6 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Table 1: Chemical properties of welding fume for some different metals (Weld Australia, 2021)

Metal Type Fume May Contain But May Also Occasionally Contain

Mild steel iron, carbon, manganese, silicon2 & aluminium nickel, chromium, molybdenum, niobium, vanadium
& boron

Stainless steels iron, chromium & nickel molybdenum, manganese, titanium & other
elements

Aluminium aluminium, silicon, iron, copper, manganese, • gallium, vanadium and/or boron in wrought alloys;
chromium, zinc & titanium &
• tin and/or lead in cast alloys

Copper, bronze & copper, zinc, nickel, aluminium, tin, lead, silicon manganese, tellurium, sulphur, chromium,
brass alloys & iron cadmium, beryllium, silver & cobalt

4. How do we measure it?

The measurement of fume typically requires occupational hygiene skills to sample the air in the beathing zone of the welder over several
hours, with laboratory analysis of the fume particles collected. The Australian Standard 3853.1 (2006) ‘Health and safety in welding and
allied processes – Sampling of airborne particles and gases in the operator’s breathing zone – Sampling of airborne particles’ describes
the determination of personal exposure to welding fume and other airborne contaminants generated by welding related operations.
Whilst the particle size range can be less than 1 µm, sampling airborne fumes generated from welding or thermal cutting processes
requires the collection of the inhalable fraction of the aerosol as per AS 3640 (2009). This is followed by laboratory analysis of those
constituents in the captured particulate deemed to be hazardous by an exposure risk assessment process.
The exposure risk assessment process for identifying hazardous constituents should apply the information in Table 1 and Attachment 2
of this document, in addition to information obtained from the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the metal type and for any coatings on
surfaces being welded or cut, welding rods or other consumables used. The analysis of the mass of fume and the hazardous constituents
shall be conducted by a NATA laboratory specifically accredited for the analysis and the results reported on NATA endorsed test
certificates (refer to Section 10 for further specifics).
Air monitoring is employed to help confirm that the control measures in use are working correctly or to provide information to assess
health risk. Also, health risk relative to guidance values relating to the need for controls and health monitoring should be determined by
a Certified Occupational Hygienist (COH®).
The assessment of the potential for adverse health effects due to welding fume (NOC) and its various components (Attachment 1) should
be performed by comparing personal exposures in the workplace to an 8-hour TWA-WES, as provided by Safe Work Australia (SWA). In
addition, the investigation will also need to consider other factors that can influence exposure on the day, such as the production rate
setting the amount of welding work needed, location of the task (e.g. in a designated bay, building or outside environments), presence
of any ventilation (e.g. local extraction ventilation), and other ambient particulate exposures or dusty tasks conducted adjacent to the
worker.
According to Breathe Freely Australia, Monitoring Exposure to Welding Fume, it is wise to conduct air monitoring when:
• Welding coated material, e.g. galvanised steel
• Using metals which have low exposure limits, such as nickel and chromium
• Fume is observed in the air coming away from the welding process3
• Fume is observed which is not being captured by the existing extraction
• There are concerns about the performance of the existing control measures, or
• You want to gather information which will help specify further control measures.
Note that Work Health and Safety Regulations state that air monitoring must be undertaken where there is uncertainty of potential
exposures to welders.
When conducting personal air sampling of welding fume, it is preferable to have the sample head inside the welding helmet 4 to better
determine operator exposures, although outside of any worn respirator. The sampling can be conducted with a conventional IOM
inhalable particulate sampler head, but in most circumstances, it is cumbersome for the welding operator. Measured exposures for

2 Note: this silicon is not crystalline silica or quartz. It is amorphous silica.

3 Note that where there is no visible plume it does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard, therefore workers must be adequately protected (Section 8).
4 Note that sampling inside of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) is not recommended due to problems with sampler efficiencies. Lehnert et al (2012)
noted though that measurements of welding particles are often below the LOD inside PAPRs.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 7 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 welders can be confusing, as they may be taken inside or outside the welder’s helmet. In the latter case, the measured levels will be
higher but not actually represent the true exposure.
SKC provide a ‘Face Level Sampling Headset’ (225-6201 Mini-Sampler), specifically designed for sampling within the breathing zone
behind protective face shields. The headset-mounted mini sampler is said to be user friendly, easy to adjust individually, does not disturb
the welder during sampling and allows sampling inside the personal protective equipment. The headset mounting arrangement
improves personal sampling as it maintains the sampler close to the nose/mouth during the whole sampling period. However, practical
experience suggests use of the headset and mini sampler is not necessarily straight forward.5
A study by Lidén and Surakka (2009) shows that the developed headset-mounted mini sampler is suitable for assessing exposure to
manganese in welding aerosol. It meets BS EN ISO 10882-1:2011 - Health Safety in Welding and Allied Processes: Sampling of Airborne
Particles.
It is important to remember that a full-shift personal sample will include the contribution of general workplace dust in addition to the
emissions generated by the welding or thermal cutting process. The source and composition of the other workplace dust should also be
understood. Furthermore, exposure measurements for individual welders can be highly variable due to the range of welding tasks and
types, in conjunction with other factors within the work environment.
To determine efficacy of controls, representative welding duties need to be measured, with close observation. That is, task-based
sampling should be undertaken, noting the welding conditions and controls. For this type of monitoring, the use of a real-time aerosol
monitor is recommended. While such measurements may not be accurate, real-time monitoring rapidly demonstrates differences in
exposures and can help the welders to appreciate how they can influence exposures during their welding/thermal cutting tasks.

5. Hazards associated with welding fumes

It is well documented that volatilised fumes and gases generated during the welding and thermal cutting processes can have adverse
health effects on workers when inhaled.
Critical effects of exposure to welding fumes can include irritation of the upper respiratory tract (nose and throat), tightness in the chest,
asphyxiation, asthma, metal fume fever, lung damage, bronchitis, cancer, pneumonia, and emphysema (SWA, 2020a & b). A detailed
list of health effects of several of the individual particulate constituents of welding fume is presented in Attachment 1.6 The International
Institute of Welding (IIW) publication ‘Hazardous Substances in Welding and Allied Processes’ (Spiegel-Ciobanu et al, 2020) compiles the
current knowledge on practically all hazardous substances in welding, soldering, brazing, and other allied processes that are relevant
from a health and safety aspect. It provides information on process-dependent emission data and general information on health hazards
and possible health effects of particles, gases, and their possible constituents.
In May 2017 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2018) reclassified welding fume from Group 2B “possibly
carcinogenic to humans” to Group 1 “carcinogenic to humans”. 7 The reclassification came following sufficient evidence that welding
fumes cause lung cancer in humans, based primarily on the available epidemiological literature. These studies did not show that the
cancer risk differed between mild steel and stainless-steel welding but were related to the total welding aerosol (i.e. fume). There was
also a positive association observed with cancer of the kidney, although not all findings were statistically significant, most studies had
only a few exposed cases, and there was little evidence of an exposure-effect relationship.
In the past, there has been particular concern about the potential cancer risks from welding stainless steel because of possible exposure
to hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) and nickel, both known lung carcinogens, and tighter levels of control have often been advocated in
these circumstances.
Welding fume exposure (median PM2.5 concentration of 1.66 mg/m3) was found to induce acute systemic inflammation in welders (Kim
et al, 2005). In addition, chronic exposure to welding fume is associated with a decrease in pulmonary function and welders have an
increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma and chronic bronchitis (Koh et al, 2015; IARC, 2018; Spiegel-
Ciobanu et al, 2020).
Exposure to fine particles (respirable and nanoparticles) present in welding fume may also be associated with cardiovascular disease.
IARC (2018) note that cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial ischemia, and atherosclerosis have been reported and epidemiological studies of
male welders showed increased risk of cardiovascular disease, including hypertension. Taj et al (2021) found that exposure to welding
fumes at low-to-moderate levels was associated with increased blood pressure.

5 For example, when fitting the device to the welder, comfort, and ability for the welder to conduct their welding tasks still needs to be considered. Other
considerations with the sampler include potential for cross-threading of the retaining ring and sampling body and its potential for the assembled head to become
loose; use of a laboratory that is NATA accredited for analysis of the specific filters required to be used in the mini-sampler; and using a sample pump that is
able to handle the recommended flow rate and back pressure produced as the sample collects on the filter (Kerry McDougall, pers comm).
6 Note that this attachment only mentions particulate constituents. There may also be gases present, including carbon monoxide, phosphine, phosgene, ozone,
and nitrogen dioxide.
7 IARC incorrectly refer to thermal cutting fume as welding fume. In their discussion on thermal welding processes such as flame (oxy-acetylene) welding, it is
acknowledged by the international welding fraternity that they should be referring to thermal cutting, as copious fume is produced in thermal cutting, but flame
welding produces minimal (if any) fume. Note too that thermal cutting includes plasma cutting which produces fume similar to arc welding (Bruce Cannon,
Weld Australia, pers com).

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 8 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 There is also consistent evidence that welders die more often of pneumonia, especially lobar pneumonia, are hospitalised more often
for lobar and pneumococcal pneumonia, and more often develop invasive pneumococcal disease (Palmer & Cosgrove, 2013).

6. Potential for exposure

The nature and severity of risks will depend on various factors, including the (SWA, 2020b):
• The type of welding process being used, including electrodes
• Properties of the materials being welded
• Surface coating of the items being welded (for example whether they contain lead or other toxic materials)
• Condition of the welding equipment
• Conditions under which welding is carried out (e.g. working in confined spaces), and
• Skills, competence, and experience of the welder.
Lehnert et al (2012) carried out personal sampling of respirable and inhalable particles in the breathing zone of 241 welders. Median
mass concentrations were 2.5 mg/m3 for inhalable and 1.3 mg/m3 for respirable particles when excluding 26 users of powered air-
purifying respirators (PAPRs). The concentrations of respirable fume from personal measurements ranged from measurements less than
the limit of detection (<LOD) up to 21.5 mg/m3. Mass concentrations were highest when gas-shielded flux-cored arc welding (FCAW)
was applied (median of inhalable particles: 11.6 mg/m3). Measurements of particles were frequently below the LOD, especially inside
PAPRs or during TIG welding. Concentrations were mainly predicted by the welding process and were significantly higher when local
exhaust ventilation (LEV) was inefficiently used or when welding was performed in confined spaces.
Kendzia et al (2019) estimated inhalable and respirable welding fume exposure concentrations from the German database MEGA
(compiled between 1983 & 2016). They found that the inhalable concentrations were approximately twice the respirable concentrations,
with medians of 3 mg/m3 (inter-quartile range: 1.2 - 7.0 mg/m3) and 1.5 mg/m3 (inter-quartile range: < LOD - 3.8 mg/m3), respectively.
The adjusted geometric means of FCAW, MIG and MAG welding, MMA welding and torch cutting ranged from 0.9 to 2.2 mg/m3 for
respirable welding fumes and from 2.3 to 4.7 mg/m3 for inhalable fumes. In both particle-size fractions, geometric means were between
0.1 and 0.9 mg/m3 when performing TIG, autogeneous8, resistance, laser, and plasma welding or spraying.
The different types of welding / thermal cutting evolve different levels of fume. Level of evolved fumes, from highest to lowest, is said
to be as follows (adapted from WorkSafe NZ, 2016 & Cancer Council):

• Arc air gouging

• Flux core (FCAW)9

• Manual metal arc welding

(MMAW)

• Metal active gas (MAG)

• Flame cutting

• MIG

• Plasma cutting

• TIG

• Laser cutting

• Resistance and friction welding

• Submerged arc

More detail on evolved fume levels due to welding process, consumable and parent material composition is provided in Attachment 2.
In a survey of airborne metal exposures to welders, metalworkers, and bystanders in small fabrication shops using FCAW only, Insley et
al (2019) found that of the 21 individual metals analysed for, only 8 were frequently detected. Exceedance fractions were less than 5%
for all metals, except for manganese and iron oxide. Typical operations in the fabrication shops included metal cutting, bending, shaping,
riveting, welding, grinding, buffing, chipping, machining, milling, turning, fastening, and engraving. The total particulate geometric mean

8 Autogenous welding is a form of fusion welding without the addition of filler material. For example, autogenous Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) or Tungsten
inert gas (TIG) welding uses a non-consumable electrode to melt the parent material without the use of a filler rod.
9 There are two main variants of this process – self shielded, which generates copious fume to protect the weld pool, and gas-shielded. Both are high productivity
processes hence can generate much fume, but self-shielded is the worst (Bruce Cannon, Weld Australia, pers com).

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 9 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 concentration collected by area sampling near the welding processes was 0.24 mg/m3. However, due to work environment factors such
as fume dispersion, number of welders within the space and general ventilation, fume may also be an issue for bystanders.
Bémer et al (2010) characterised the ultrafine aerosol emitted by thermal spraying of metals (zinc, zinc/aluminium & aluminium) using
flame and electric arc processes. They found that ultrafine particle (80 - 95% of number distribution <100 nm) emission rates produced
by the electric arc process are very high, the largest values being recorded during spraying of pure aluminium. Brand et al (2013) found
that welding processes with high mass emission rates (MMAW, MAG welding, MIG welding, MIG brazing, and laser welding) show mainly
agglomerated particles with diameters above 100 nm and only few particles in the size range below 50 nm (10 to 15%). Welding
processes with low mass emission rates (TIG welding and resistance spot welding) emit predominantly ultrafine particles with diameters
well below 100 nm, which can be more toxic. They suggested that this finding can be explained by considerably faster agglomeration
processes in welding processes with high mass emission rates. Such high particle emissions require careful consideration and possible
rethinking of currently implemented protection measures (Section 8).

7. Risk of health effects

There is a very large cohort of workers who are potentially regularly exposed to welding fume and welding fume exposure contributes
significantly to work-related burden of disease and injury (IARC, 2018).
The toxicity of fumes will vary with the type and quantity of material volatilised. The WES of a hazardous substance is indicative of its
toxicity, but not definitive. Depending on the components and size of the fume generated, the particles may be absorbed into the
bloodstream via the upper respiratory tract, or travel to the lower gas-exchange regions of the lungs.
Attachment 1 provides a list of hazardous welding / thermal cutting airborne contaminants and their WESs, as well as target health
effects. In non-ventilated laboratory tests, most welding processes result in a breathing zone concentration greater than the current
exposure standard (Weld Australia, 2021). However, when assessing full shift personal exposures where welding and thermal cutting
only occur intermittently, it is possible that exposure concentrations will be less than the exposure standard, being diluted by other
workplace exposures.
A meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies on welding or exposure to welding fumes and risk of lung cancer supported the
conclusion that exposure to welding fumes increases the risk of lung cancer, regardless of the type of steel welded, the welding method,
and independent of exposure to asbestos or tobacco smoking (Honaryar et al, 2019). Welders had a meta-relative risk of lung cancer of
between 1.17 and 1.87 when compared with those who have never welded or been exposed to welding fume. In addition, increased
risks persist regardless of exposure time or occupational setting, and the risk increases with years of employment as a welder. However,
this meta-analysis did not provide estimates for lung cancer risk by quantitative level of exposure to welding fumes. Similarly, IARC
(2018) noted for the lung cancer studies used, that exposure effects were not consistent across studies and there was difficulty in
quantifying exposure to welding fumes retrospectively, particularly for those relying on self-reporting by respondents.
Cherrie and Levi (2020) note that lung cancer risks were observable at very low exposure levels of inhalable welding fume; below 1
mg/m3 and perhaps as low as 0.1 mg/m3, averaged over a working lifetime. They suggest that due to the carcinogenicity of welding
fume (and several of its constituents), a precautionary approach is needed to control welding fume exposures to the lowest levels
practicable.
Harris (2019) noted that we are challenged by the fact that not all welding fume is the same. The IARC (2018) Group 1 carcinogenic
potential of welding fume does not address the possible differences in carcinogenicity that may be exhibited by differing combinations
of the metals and welding or thermal cutting processes involved. He discussed two possible approaches to deriving an exposure limit
for welding fume: the additive formula model, and the aggregate undifferentiated fume model, preferring the latter. The total
undifferentiated aggregate fume model was preferred as it involved: a single sample medium, and a single occupational exposure limit
(OEL) for each common combination of consumable and process.
Note that just because a welding process has a low mass emission rate does not mean that it is necessarily less toxic than a high mass
emission rate process (Section 6).
A consideration of the AIOH (2016) trigger values for Dust (NOS) of 5 mg/m3 for the inhalable fraction and 1 mg/m3 for the respirable
fraction, may provide some guidance for a welding fume limit value. The following limitations however need to be considered regarding
the Dust (NOS) trigger values:
• They are based on reducing the risk of COPD only, not other lung and cardiovascular diseases
• They relate to exposure to insoluble particulate whilst welding fume can be a mixture of soluble metal complexes and insoluble
metal and non-metal particulate, all of which contribute to toxicity, and
• The value for respirable particulate does not account for a potentially high exposure to nanoparticles (exposure to which vary
depending on the type of welding process). These do not contribute significantly to the mass of the respirable fume but are
potentially associated with an increase in oxidative stress and lung inflammatory response due to their large surface area/volume
ratio and composition.
Taj et al (2021) suggest that an OEL value of less than 2.5 mg/m3 (as the respirable fraction) is needed to protect cardiovascular health
of workers. Median respirable dust concentrations, adjusted for respiratory protection, of the welders in this six-year longitudinal study
were 0.5 to 0.7 mg/m3.
As noted by SWA (2020a) though, “Given the significant composition variability in welding fumes, a gravimetrically determined WES that
can adequately protect workers cannot be determined.”

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 10 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 8. Available controls
Controls should focus on prevention of exposure with priority given to the higher order controls in the hierarchy of controls. It is essential
that the general ventilation of the workplace is adequate to prevent the accumulation of hazardous airborne contaminants from welding
and thermal cutting processes. Where local extraction ventilation is used it must not negatively impact on the quality and integrity of
the weld. Usually, a combination of control methods may be required to minimise the welder’s exposure to fume.
It is also essential that workers who conduct welding and thermal cutting processes understand the associated health hazards and are
trained in using the controls effectively. Using the hierarchy of controls in the order of their effectiveness, occupational exposure to
welding fumes can be controlled by:
• Elimination of the need to weld or cut (e.g. use of pre-cast components or extruded shapes)
• Substitution with a safer (lower fume) alternative process or consumables
• Efficient containment and ventilation of processes (e.g. use of local exhaust ventilation) or fume capture using on-tool extraction
(where feasible) with the aim to capture the fume close to the source of generation.
• Forced ventilation (e.g. via use of pedestal fans) may be utilised providing the fume is not directed at other workers). Fans may
also provide some thermal comfort to workers
• Consideration of discharge locations not posing risk to neighbouring work parties who may not be utilising controls used by the
welder themselves
• The provision of regular education and training in health effects caused by welding and how welders can protect themselves
• Consideration or assessment of the need to implement health monitoring
• Ready access and correct use of personal respiratory protective equipment (e.g. PAPR fitted with P2 filters, fit tested negative
pressure respirators), selected, used and maintained as per AS/NZS 1715 (2009)
• Administrative controls, including inspection and maintenance of controls such that they are fit for purpose, and restricted access
to areas where the welding or thermal processes are conducted, and
• A suitable location to store and clean used personal protective equipment.
Safe welding (and thermal cutting) practices are described in various government publications, such as the Safe Work Australia (SWA,
2020b) Code of Practice for ‘Welding Processes’ and the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI, 2003) ‘Guideline for Safe
Cutting and Welding at Mines’.
Breathe Freely Australia also provides good resources for implementing controls for welding fume exposures. A key resource is the Weld
Australia (2021) publication ‘Fume Minimisation Guidelines: Welding, Cutting, Brazing & Soldering’. As detailed in this document, key
control methods are:
• Where practicable, remove the welder from the source of the fume by mechanising or automating the welding process
• In conformance with Weld Australia’s Fume minimisation guidelines, arrange the work piece so that the welder’s head is not in
the plume
• Do not expect a light cross-draught in the vicinity of the welder’s face to reliably remove the fume from the welder’s breathing
zone. Whilst mechanically assisted ventilation (e.g. a fan) can be utilised, cross draughts sufficient to disperse fume may cause
weld quality issues. Other fume management equipment such as fume extractors (e.g. fixed, downdraft or portable) may be
required
• Utilise personal protective equipment such as respirators (e.g. P2) and air-fed helmets if alternative methods of fume control are
not reasonably practicable, and
• A combination of fume control methods that includes the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. PAPR, air-fed helmets, etc)
may be necessary to minimise the welder’s exposure to weld fume.
Keane et al (2014) found that although no single process is the best for minimising fume emissions and costs while satisfying the weld
requirements, there are several processes that can minimise emissions. Fume emission rates per gram of electrode consumed were
highest for MMAW (~13mg fume per g electrode) and lowest for GMAW processes such as pulsed spray (~1.5mg/g) and Cold Metal
Transfer™ (CMT ~1mg/g).10 Manganese emission rates per gram of electrode consumed ranged from 0.45 mg/g (MMAW) to 0.08mg/g
(CMT). Nickel emission rates were generally low and ranged from ~0.09 (GMAW short circuit) to 0.004mg/g (CMT). Iron emission rates
ranged from 3.7 (spray-mode GMAW) to 0.49 mg/g (CMT). More detail on fume emission rates and controls are provided in the German
publication ‘Technical Rule for Hazardous Substances (TRGS) 528: Welding work’ (GMBl, 2020).

9. Current exposure standards

Only some of the Western world has set a TWA exposure limit for welding fume (NOS / NOC), of between 1 and 5 mg/m3, either as the
inhalable or the respirable fraction, as per the Gestis database for international limit values, with most (79%) set at 5 mg/m3 (inhalable
fraction). The adoption of a 5 mg/m3 limit value in most jurisdictions was based on the old ACGIH® TLV® at the time, which was
established to protect workers against a significantly increased risk of metal fume fever. The current Australian WES for welding fume
(NOS as inhalable fraction) is a TWA value of 5 mg/m3.

10 CMT is a proprietary version of waveform-controlled welding, in this case waveform-controlled dip mode. SST is another variant and there are other proprietary
variations on this (Bruce Cannon, Weld Australia, pers com).

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 11 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 In Germany, the exposure limit and regulation for general dust or non-specified welding fume (where no other specific exposure limit
exists for that substance) is 1.25 mg/m3 as the respirable fraction (GMBl, 2020), based on the TRGS 900 Exposure Limits. This exposure
limit is based on preventing chronic, particle-related inflammatory processes in the lungs (BAuA, 2014). In the Netherlands the health-
based exposure limit for welding fume is 1 mg/m3, applicable to ‘inert’ welding fume particles not containing toxic metals such as
chromium and nickel (DECOS, 1993). It was based on total particulate collected, where a safety factor was applied to the no-observed-
adverse-effect level of 5 to 6 mg/m3 (determined for effects on the respiratory system) and 3.2 mg/m3 (determined for effects on the
male reproductive system).
Spiegel-Ciobanu et al (2020) suggest that “for all processes with unalloyed/low alloy material (parent and filler materials), where the
portions of chromium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, barium, fluoride are individually below 5% by weight and where no mutagenic,
carcinogenic, fibrogenic, toxic or sensitising substances are contained in the welding fume, it is in most cases sufficient to determine the
concentration of the welding fume/respirable fraction for comparison with the relevant limit value specified for workplace exposure”.
Otherwise, the limit value of the relevant key compound(s) will be the determining factor.
It should be noted that this mass-based approach does not give information on the risks of exposure to nanoparticles generated during
the welding process.

10. AIOH recommendation

The AIOH believe that exposures to welding and thermal cutting fume should be kept as low as reasonably practicable and consider that
a TWA-WES for welding and thermal cutting fume (NOS / NOC) would be useful as a guidance value to trigger appropriate controls. We
propose the use of 1 mg/m3 (as inhalable fraction), noting that other hazardous substances in the welding fume should be identified
through a risk assessment process by applying the information in Table 1 and Attachment 2 of this document, in addition to information
obtained from the SDS for the metal type and for any coatings on surfaces being welded or cut, welding rods or other consumables used.
Where there is the potential for exposure to hazardous individual fume constituents, then the fume on the sample filter should be
analysed for the appropriate metallic elements and the results assessed against their respective current WES values such as those listed
in Attachment 1. This recommendation may also be applied to fumes from thermal cutting and metal smelting processes.
The AIOH recommend the use of a NATA laboratory specifically accredited to conduct welding fume analyses and accredited for the
analysis of the various hazardous constituents, and the results reported on NATA endorsed test certificates. Also, health risk relative to
guidance values relating to the need for controls and health monitoring should be determined by a Certified Occupational Hygienist
(COH®).
The AIOH believe it is important that health monitoring is also utilised, particularly for Schedule 14 hazardous chemicals (e.g. cadmium,
chromium & lead). The SWA ‘Health monitoring guides’ should be followed.
Given the complex aspects of welding and thermal cutting fume toxicity and exposure assessment, rather than depending only on an
airborne regulatory exposure limit (i.e. a WES), the AIOH believe it would be in the best interest of all stakeholders to also use existing
industry-specific guidance / best practice approaches. Such approaches already exist, including the fume minimisation guidelines
described by Weld Australia (2021). Training of workers in the correct and safe conduct of welding and thermal cutting to minimise
exposures is of paramount importance.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

ACGIH (2018). Documentation of the TLVs® and BEIs® with Other Worldwide Occupational Exposure Values – CD-ROM version (7th
Edition Documentation). American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Cincinnati, Ohio.
AIOH (2016). Dusts Not Otherwise Specified (Dust NOS) and Occupational Health Issues. Position Paper by Australian Institute of
Occupational Hygienists (AIOH) – see https://www.aioh.org.au/resources/publications1/position-technical-papers/position-papers-1.

AS 3853 (2006). Health and safety in welding and allied processes – Sampling of airborne particles and gases in the operator’s
breathing zone: Part 1; Sampling of airborne particles; & Part 2; Sampling of gases. Standards Australia, Sydney.

AS 3640 (2009). Workplace atmospheres - Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of inhalable dust. Standards Australia,
Sydney.
AS/NZS 1715 (2009). Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment. Australian/New Zealand Standard, Sydney.

AWS (2020). 2020 Welding Fume and Respiratory Protection Survey. Australian Welding Supplies (AWS) Pty Ltd – see
https://www.awsi.com.au/.

American Welding Society (2010). Standard welding terms and definitions including terms for adhesive bonding, brazing, soldering,
thermal cutting, and thermal spraying. ANSI/AWS A3.0M/A3.0:2010. Miami (FL), USA: American Welding Society.

BAuA (2014). Justification for the general dust limit value (2014/2001) in TRGS 900. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und
Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) – see https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-Regeln/Regelwerk/TRGS/pdf/900/900-
allgemeiner-staubgrenzwert.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 12 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Brand, P, K Lenz, U Reisgen & T Kraus (2013). Number Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Fume Particles from Various Welding
Processes. Ann Occup Hyg, 57(3); pp 305-313.

Breathe Freely Australia website on welding – https://www.breathefreelyaustralia.org.au/welding/.

Bémer, D, R Régnier, I Subra, B Sutter, MT Lecler & Y Morele (2010). Ultrafine Particles Emitted by Flame and Electric Arc Guns for
Thermal Spraying of Metals. Ann Occup Hyg, 54(6); pp 607-614.

Cherrie, JW & L Levy (2020). Managing Occupational Exposure to Welding Fume: New Evidence Suggests a More Precautionary
Approach is Needed. Ann Work Exp & Health, 64(1); pp 1-4.

DECOS (1993). Health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for ARC welding fume particles not containing chromium and
nickel. Dutch Expert Committee on Occupational Standards (DECOS).

GMBl (2020). Technical Rule for Hazardous Substances (TRGS) 528: Welding work – see https://www.baua.de/EN/Service/Legislative-
texts-and-technical-rules/Rules/TRGS/TRGS-528.html.

Harris, M (2019). Welding fume is a Group 1 carcinogen with no OEL and no method - Suggestions for a path forward. J Occup Environ
Hyg, 16(6); pp 367-371.

Honaryar, MK, RM Lunn, D Luce, W Ahrens, A 't Mannetje, J Hansen, L Bouaoun, D Loomis, G Byrnes, N Vilahur, L Stayner & N Guha
(2019). Welding fumes and lung cancer: A meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Occup Environ Med, 76(6); pp 422-431 –
see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30948521/.

IARC (2018). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 118 - Welding, Molybdenum Trioxide, and Indium
Tin Oxide. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France – see https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-
Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Welding-Molybdenum-Trioxide-And-Indium-Tin-
Oxide-2018.

Insley, AL, JR Maskrey, LA Hallett, RCD Reid, ES Hynds, C Winter & JM Panko (2019). Occupational survey of airborne metal exposures
to welders, metalworkers, and bystanders in small fabrication shops. J Occup Environ Hyg, 16(6); pp 410-421.

Keane, MJ, A Siert, BT Chen & SG Stone (2014). Profiling Mild Steel Welding Processes to Reduce Fume Emissions and Costs in the
Workplace. Ann Occup Hyg, 58(4); pp 403-412.

Kendzia, B, D Koppisch, R Van Gelder, S Gabriel, W Zschiesche, T Behrens, T Brüning & B Pesch (2019). Modelling of exposure to
respirable and inhalable welding fumes at German workplaces. J Occup Environ Hyg, 16(6); pp 400-409.

Kim, JY, J-C Chen, PD Boyce & DC Christiani (2005). Exposure to welding fumes is associated with acute systemic inflammatory
responses. Occup Environ Med, 62(3); pp 157-163.

Koh, D-H, J-I Kim, K-H Kim, S-W Yoo, the Korea Welders Cohort Group (2015). Welding fume exposure and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease in welders. Occup Med, 65(1); pp 72-77.

Korczynski, RE (2000). Occupational Health Concerns in the Welding Industry. App Occup Environ Hyg, 15(12); pp 936-945

Lehnert M, B Pesch, A Lotz, J Pelzer, B Kendzia, K Gawrych et al (2012). Exposure to Inhalable, Respirable, and Ultrafine Particles in
Welding Fume. Ann Occup Hyg; 56(5); pp 557–567 – see https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/56/5/557/160111.

Lidén, G & J Surakka (2009). A Headset-Mounted Mini Sampler for Measuring Exposure to Welding Aerosol in the Breathing Zone. Ann
Occup Hyg, 53(2); pp 99-116 – see https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/53/2/99/175518.

Matczak, W & J Gromiec (2002). Evaluation of Occupational Exposure to Toxic Metals Released in the Process of Aluminium Welding.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg, 17(4); pp 296-303.

NSW DPI (2003). Guideline for Safe Cutting and Welding at Mines. Department of Primary Industries (DPI) MDG 25 – see
https://www.resourcesregulator.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/419462/MDG-25.pdf.

Palmer, KT & P Cosgrove (2013). Vaccinating welders against pneumonia. Occup Med (Lond), 62(5); pp 325-330.
Spiegel-Ciobanu, VE, L Costa & W Zschiesche (2020). Hazardous Substances in Welding and Allied Processes. International Institute of
Welding (IIW) & Springer – see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-36926-2.
SWA (2020a). Welding Fumes (Not Otherwise Classified). Safe Work Australia (SWA) recommended workplace exposure standard (WES)
documentation.
SWA (2020b). Welding Processes Code of Practice. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia – see
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-code-practice-welding-processes.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 13 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Taj, T, AR Gliga, M Hedmer, K Wahlberg, E Assarsson, T Lundh, H Tinnerberg, M Albin & K Broberg (2021). Effect of Welding Fumes on
the Cardiovascular System: A six-year longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health, 47(1); pp 52-61

The Welding Institute. Health, Safety and Accident Prevention - Health Risks from Fume and Gases During Welding – see
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/health-safety-and-accident-prevention-health-risks-from-fume-and-
gases-during-welding-031.

Tyagi, V, et al (1998). Assessment of Breathing Zone Fume from a Range of Welding and Related Processes. In: Proceedings of the
Technology Forum; Cleaning up Welding Fume – Complying with the Hazardous Substances Regulations Regarding Welding Fumes,
presented by the Welding Technology Institute of Australia (WTIA), October 1998

Weld Australia (2020). Health and Safety in Welding. Technical Note TN-07 – see https://portal.weldaustralia.com.au/resources/.

Weld Australia (2021). Fume Minimisation Guidelines: Welding, Cutting, Brazing & Soldering. Technical Guidance Note TGN-SW01 –
see https://portal.weldaustralia.com.au/resources/.

WorkSafe NZ (2016). Welding and Local Exhaust Ventilation. WorkSafe New Zealand Fact Sheet – see https://worksafe.govt.nz/topic-
and-industry/welding/welding-and-local-exhaust-ventilation/.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 14 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Attachment 1: Workplace Exposure Standards for Welding / Thermal Cutting Fume (Particulate) Contaminants
Substance Current WES Proposed WES Health Effect
Welding fume TWA = 5 mg/m3 None Known human carcinogen; chronic lung effects (Koh et al,
2015); metal fume fever
Aluminium TWA = 5 mg/m3 TWA = 1 mg/m3 Respiratory irritant; adverse effects in the lungs and central
nervous system
Barium, soluble TWA = 0.5 TWA = 0.5 mg/m3 Eye, skin & GI irritant; muscular stimulant
mg/m3
Beryllium TWA = 0.002 TWA = 0.00002 mg/m3 Metal fume fever;11 beryllium sensitisation; a carcinogen;
mg/m3 & STEL = 0.0002 mg/m3 other chronic effects include damage to the respiratory tract
Boron oxide TWA = 10 TWA = 10 mg/m3 Eye and respiratory irritant
mg/m3
Cadmium TWA = 0.01 TWA = 0.001 mg/m3 Irritation of respiratory system, sore and dry throat, chest
mg/m3 pain and breathing difficulty; chronic effects include kidney
damage and emphysema; suspected carcinogen
Chromium (II & III) TWA = 0.5 TWA = 0.04 mg/m3 Increased risk of lung cancer; some individuals may develop
mg/m3 TWA = 0.000007 mg/m3 skin irritation; some forms are known human carcinogens (Cr
Chromium (VI) TWA = 0.05 VI)
mg/m3
Cobalt TWA = 0.05 TWA = 0.02 mg/m3 Irritant, fibrosis of the lung, sensitiser
mg/m3
Copper TWA = 0.2 TWA = 0.01 mg/m3 Acute effects include irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
mg/m3 nausea and metal fume fever
Fluorides TWA = 2.5 TWA = 2.5 mg/m3 Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, nose and throat; long-
mg/m3 term exposures may result in bone and joint problems;
chronic effects also include excess fluid in the lungs
Iron oxide TWA = 5 mg/m3 TWA = 5 mg/m3 Siderosis, a benign form of lung disease caused by particles
deposited in the lungs; acute symptoms include irritation of
the nose and lungs - tends to clear up when exposure stops
Lead TWA = 0.05 TWA = 0.05 mg/m3 Chronic effects to nervous system, kidneys, digestive system
mg/m3 and mental capacity; can cause lead poisoning; ototoxic and
therefore risk of hearing loss
Magnesium oxide TWA = 10 TWA = 10 mg/m3 Respiratory irritant, metal fume fever
mg/m3
Manganese TWA = 1 mg/m3 TWA = 0.02 mg/m3 resp Metal fume fever; chronic effects may include central
& STEL = 3 & 0.1 mg/m3 inhal nervous system problems; ototoxic and therefore risk of
mg/m3 hearing loss
Molybdenum – TWA = 5 mg/m3 TWA = 0.5 mg/m3 / Acute effects are eye, nose and throat irritation, and
soluble / insoluble / TWA = 10 TWA = 10 mg/m3 inhal shortness of breath
mg/m3 & 3 mg/m3 resp
Nickel – metal / TWA = 1 mg/m3 TWA = 0.1 mg/m3 Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, nose and throat;
soluble / TWA = 0.1 increased cancer risk has been noted in occupations other
mg/m3 than welding; also associated with dermatitis and lung
problems
Pyrolyzed rosin TWA = 0.1 TWA = 0.1 mg/m3 Respiratory and/or skin irritant
mg/m3
Silica fume TWA = 2 mg/m3 TWA = 2 mg/m3 Fever, similar to metal fume fever
Tin TWA = 2 mg/m3 TWA = 2 mg/m3 Stannosis, a rare benign form of lung disease caused by
particles deposited in the lungs
Titanium dioxide TWA = 10 TWA = 1 mg/m3 Mild respiratory irritant
mg/m3
Vanadium TWA = 0.05 TWA = 0.05 mg/m3 (as Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, skin and respiratory tract
mg/m3 (as V2O5 V2O5 resp) chronic effects include bronchitis, retinitis, fluid in the lungs
resp) and pneumonia
Zinc oxide TWA = 10 TWA = 2 mg/m3 & STEL Metal fume fever, bronchitis
mg/m3 = 10 mg/m3

11
Symptoms are similar to the flu and are often worse at the start of the week. Effects usually aren’t long-lasting.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 15 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Attachment 2: Effect of process, consumable and parent metal composition on the assessment of exposure
Adapted from The Welding Institute’s publication “Health risks from fume and gases during welding”, including data from papers by
Korczynski (2000), Matczak & Gromiec (2002) and by Tyagi et al (1998).

Process Material Indication of fume level Nature of fume - assessment

indicators

Gas welding Mild steel Below WESs except in poorly ventilated or Carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon
confined space. monoxide (CO; reducing flame)
nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Manual metal arc Mild steel and Generally more than WESs; 3 to 30 mg/m3 in open Iron oxide (Fe2O3), manganese
(MMAW) low alloy workshop conditions; depends on operator (Mn).
(structural) variables. Tyagi et al found 1.6 to 9.5 mg/m3 for
steels total fume, 1.5 to 2.4 mg Fe/m3, and 0.5 mg
Mn/m3.

Stainless steel Generally more than WESs; 3 to 30 mg/m3 in open Hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) or
workshop. Tyagi et al found 1.4 to 14 mg/m3 for nickel (Ni). Fume from
total fume, and 0.3 mg Cr/m3. consumables, may contain up
to 8% chromium, the majority
present as Cr VI.

Aluminium, Generally more than WESs. Fume from consumables, ozone

copper, nickel in aluminium welding.
alloys, cast iron Aluminium, copper, nickel,
chromium barium cobalt,
depending on the alloy welded.

Hardfacing Generally more than WESs. Tyagi et al found 46 to Fume from consumables, and
258 mg/m3 for total fume, 16 mg Cr/m3 and 9 mg ozone.
Cr(VI)/m3.

Gas tungsten arc Mild and low Less than WESs. Fume from consumables -
(GTAW), or alloy shielding gas can constitute a
tungsten inert gas (structural) hazard in confined spaces by
(TIG), and plasma steels reducing the available oxygen
arc to a level that will not support
life.

Stainless steel Less than WESs for particulate fume (Tyagi et al Ozone, shielding gases in
alloys found <1 mg/m3), greater than WES for ozone. confined spaces.

Aluminium Less than WESs. Matczak & Gromiec found 0.3 to Fume from consumables.
1.4 mg/m3 for total fume, 0.07 to 0.5 mg Al/m3 for
TIG.

Gas metal arc Mild and low Generally more than WESs. Tyagi et al found 2 to Particulate Fe2O3, Mn, ozone,
(GMAW) or Metal alloy 65 mg/m3 for total fume, 5 to 39 mg Fe/m3, and 1 shield gases. Higher fume
inert gas/metal (structural) to 5 mg Mn/m3. Korczynski found 0.04 to 16 mg levels are obtained with CO2
active gas steels Fe/m3 and 0.01 to 4.9 mg Mn/m3. shielding than with argon.
(MIG/MAG)
Stainless steel Generally more than WESs. Tyagi et al found 5 to Cr, Ni, ozone and shield gases.
29 mg/m3 for total fume, and 2 mg Cr/m3. Process related values will
apply to particulate fume.

Aluminium and Greater than WESs for ozone and fume. Tyagi et al Particulate aluminium oxide
aluminium found <1 to 94 mg/m3 for total fume, 6 to 44 mg fume. Ozone levels can be very
alloys Al/m3, 0.3 mg Mn/m3, 0.2 to 0.4 mg Zn/m3 and up high particularly with
to 1.2 ppm ozone. Matczak & Gromiec found 0.8 aluminium/silicon alloys some
to 18 mg/m3 for total fume, 0.1 to 7.7 mg Al/m3, distance from the arc.
0.002 to 0.05 mg Mn/m3, 0.002 to 0.14 mg Zn/m3.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 16 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022
 Process Material Indication of fume level Nature of fume - assessment
indicators

Flux-cored arc Mild and low Generally more than WESs. Tyagi et al found 4 to Particulate Fe2O3, Mn and flux
(FCAW)12 alloy 290 mg/m3 for total fume, 7 to 140 mg Fe/m3, and materials, some consumables
(structural) 0.4 to 32 mg Mn/m3. may give rise to soluble barium
steels in fume.

Stainless steel Greater than WESs. Consumable and flux

particulates, Cr VI, Cr III, Ni
likely to be present.

Hardfacing Generally more than WESs. Tyagi et al found 32 to Fume from consumables,
345 mg/m3 for total fume, 0.9 to 27 mg Cr/m3 and chromium VI likely to be
0.2 to 1.3 mg Cr(VI)/m3. present.

Brazing Copper and Generally below WESs. Tyagi et al found <0.6 Copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and
brass mg/m3 for total fume, and 2.7 mg F/m3. fluoride (F) particulate fume.

Thermit Rail steel Generally greater than WESs for fume. Tyagi et al Particulate fume.
found <2 to 159 mg/m3 for total fume.

12
Note that self-shielded FCAW produces more fume that does gas shielded FCAW.

WELDING FUME POSITION PAPER PAGE 17 OF 17 AIOH Workplace Exposure Assessment Committee| April 2022