Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Manganese and welding fume exposure and control in construction.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007 Dec; 4(12):943-51.JO

Abstract

Overexposure to welding fume constituents, particularly manganese, is of concern in the construction industry due to the prevalence of welding and the scarcity of engineering controls. The control effectiveness of a commercially available portable local exhaust ventilation (LEV) unit was assessed. It consisted of a portable vacuum and a small bell-shaped hood connected by a flexible 2 inch (50.8 mm) diameter hose, in both experimental and field settings. The experimental testing was done in a semienclosed booth at a pipefitter training facility. Five paired trials of LEV control vs. no control, each approximately 1 hr in duration and conducted during two successive welds of 6 inch (152.4 mm) diameter carbon steel pipe were run in random order. Breathing zone samples were collected outside the welding hood during each trial. In the field scenario, full-shift breathing zone samples were collected from two pipefitters welding carbon steel pipe for a chiller installation on a commercial construction project. Eight days of full-shift sampling were conducted on both workers (n = 16), and the LEV was used by one of the two workers on an alternating basis for 7 of the days. All samples were collected with personal sample pumps calibrated at 2 L/min. Filter cassettes were analyzed for total particulate and manganese concentration by a certified laboratory. In the experimental setting, use of the portable LEV resulted in a 75% reduction in manganese exposure (mean 13 microg/m(3) vs. 51 microg/m(3); p < 0.05) and a 60% reduction in total particulate (mean 0.74 mg/m(3) vs. 1.83 mg/m(3); p < 0.05). In the field setting, LEV use resulted in a 53% reduction in manganese exposure (geometric mean 46 microg/m(3) vs. 97 microg/m(3); p < 0.05) but only a 10% reduction in total particulate (geometric mean 4.5 mg/m(3) vs. 5.0 mg/m(3); p > 0.05). These results demonstrate that LEV use can reduce manganese exposure associated with welding tasks in construction.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17963139

Citation

Meeker, John D., et al. "Manganese and Welding Fume Exposure and Control in Construction." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 4, no. 12, 2007, pp. 943-51.
Meeker JD, Susi P, Flynn MR. Manganese and welding fume exposure and control in construction. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(12):943-51.
Meeker, J. D., Susi, P., & Flynn, M. R. (2007). Manganese and welding fume exposure and control in construction. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 4(12), 943-51.
Meeker JD, Susi P, Flynn MR. Manganese and Welding Fume Exposure and Control in Construction. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(12):943-51. PubMed PMID: 17963139.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Manganese and welding fume exposure and control in construction. AU - Meeker,John D, AU - Susi,Pam, AU - Flynn,Michael R, PY - 2007/10/27/pubmed PY - 2008/2/1/medline PY - 2007/10/27/entrez SP - 943 EP - 51 JF - Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene JO - J Occup Environ Hyg VL - 4 IS - 12 N2 - Overexposure to welding fume constituents, particularly manganese, is of concern in the construction industry due to the prevalence of welding and the scarcity of engineering controls. The control effectiveness of a commercially available portable local exhaust ventilation (LEV) unit was assessed. It consisted of a portable vacuum and a small bell-shaped hood connected by a flexible 2 inch (50.8 mm) diameter hose, in both experimental and field settings. The experimental testing was done in a semienclosed booth at a pipefitter training facility. Five paired trials of LEV control vs. no control, each approximately 1 hr in duration and conducted during two successive welds of 6 inch (152.4 mm) diameter carbon steel pipe were run in random order. Breathing zone samples were collected outside the welding hood during each trial. In the field scenario, full-shift breathing zone samples were collected from two pipefitters welding carbon steel pipe for a chiller installation on a commercial construction project. Eight days of full-shift sampling were conducted on both workers (n = 16), and the LEV was used by one of the two workers on an alternating basis for 7 of the days. All samples were collected with personal sample pumps calibrated at 2 L/min. Filter cassettes were analyzed for total particulate and manganese concentration by a certified laboratory. In the experimental setting, use of the portable LEV resulted in a 75% reduction in manganese exposure (mean 13 microg/m(3) vs. 51 microg/m(3); p < 0.05) and a 60% reduction in total particulate (mean 0.74 mg/m(3) vs. 1.83 mg/m(3); p < 0.05). In the field setting, LEV use resulted in a 53% reduction in manganese exposure (geometric mean 46 microg/m(3) vs. 97 microg/m(3); p < 0.05) but only a 10% reduction in total particulate (geometric mean 4.5 mg/m(3) vs. 5.0 mg/m(3); p > 0.05). These results demonstrate that LEV use can reduce manganese exposure associated with welding tasks in construction. SN - 1545-9624 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17963139/Manganese_and_welding_fume_exposure_and_control_in_construction_ L2 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459620701718867 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -