Welding in the World

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01741-5

RESEARCH PAPER

Investigation on the effectivity of nanoparticle elimination of a fume

extractor TIG torch
Csaba Kővágó1 · Kornél Májlinger2 · Éva Szűcs‑Somlyó3 · József Lehel4

Received: 31 October 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Although tungsten inert gas welding is considered one of the cleanest welding techniques, which is virtually “fumeless”,
recent studies show, there is a significant amount of nano-sized particles generated during the process. To protect the weld-
ing personnel from possible harmful effects of inhalation of fume particles, fume extractor torches are developed. One such
welding fume extractor torch was tested and compared to a conventional one during manual welding of unalloyed structural
steel. Using the fume extractor torch, a significantly lower amount of nano-particles was measured in the welder’s personal
breathing zone effectively decreasing the exposure to possible harmful effects of those nano-sized particles.

Keywords Welder health protection · Fume extraction torch · Welding fume emission · Fume exposure

1 Introduction welding of high alloyed steels, special alloys, and nonfer-

Welding is a crucial process across various industries,
involving about 11 million professional welders globally
and many more occasional welding equipment users [1, 2].
Most fusion welding techniques expose workers to hazard-
ous substances like manganese, hexavalent chromium, nickel
oxide, and iron particles in form of welding fumes [3–6].
Metal active/inert gas (MAG/MIG) welding is among
the most commonly used methods in steel construction and
is particularly emissive due to high deposition rates and to
the applied high current. It releases particles and gases that
contain various metals and metal oxides, leading to a risk
of respiratory diseases and neurological disorders [7–9].
Tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding method is another kind
of welding technology that is used very often, especially for
* Éva Szűcs‑Somlyó
szucs-somlyo.eva@univet.hu
1
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University
of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials
Science and Engineering, Budapest University of Technology
and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
3
Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases,
University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
4
Department of Food Safety, University of Veterinary
Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
rous metals, like aluminum or copper. This technology is
considered as clean and nearly fumeless; however, recent
examinations show that it also has high levels of particle
emission, but in the nanoparticle (NP) size range (1–100 nm
in diameter). Despite the existence of occupational exposure
limits countries like Germany, studies indicate that exposure
often exceeds these limits [10–13].
Several technical solutions aim to manage the fume-
caused health risks. In Japan, a fume-exhaust gun system
is recommended [14]. The European standard “Health and
safety in welding and allied processes—Laboratory method
for sampling fume and gases—Part 4: Fume data sheets”
UNE EN ISO 15011–4 allows the substitution of less haz-
ardous filler metals to reduce the possible harmful effects of
the created welding fumes [15]. Also, it has been reported
that even the proper droplet transfer method, or a complex
arc modulation technique can significantly reduce the fume
emission rate [16–18].
Fume extraction torches for MIG/MAG welding, also
known as “fume extraction guns”, originated in the 1970s
with the aim of reducing welders’ exposure to hazardous
fumes. These devices have been the subject of various stud-
ies, some of which indicate that the fume extraction flow
rate around 100 ­m3 ­h−1 is effective in capturing fumes.
The torch’s inclination also plays a significant role in the
efficiency of fume capture [19, 20]. Despite their potential
advantages, these torches have not been widely adopted.

Vol.:(0123456789)

Reasons include ergonomic issues such as the torch’s exces-
sive weight and rigidity, as well as technical problems like
inefficient fume capture and the suction of shielding gas that
compromises the quality of the weld. Field observations also
indicate that welders rarely maintain the suggested torch
inclination angles, which affects the device’s efficiency in
capturing fumes.
Studies by Rösemann et al. [21] and Yapp et al. [19]
underline the importance of these personal protection equip-
ment tools, emphasizing that their design, weight, and effi-
ciency in fume extraction are key factors for their acceptance
by operators [19]. Godbole et al. used computational fluid
dynamics to optimize the design of extraction nozzles, even-
tually leading to a patented torch design that significantly
increases fume reduction efficiency [3, 22]. Flynn and Susi’s
review [23] show that fume extraction torches can effectively
reduce fume exposure by 40–50% compared to natural venti-
lation, although they are not always sufficient to lower fume
exposure below certain thresholds. Marconi and Bravaccini
[20] reported similar findings, but also emphasized the need
to consider various factors like welding position and envi-
ronmental conditions for optimum use. Bonthoux [24] iden-
tifies multiple factors affecting fume extraction efficiency,
such as extraction flow velocity, nozzle position, and torch
inclination, and provides quantitative recommendations for
optimum efficiency.
It is important to note that while on-torch fume extrac-
tion technology has been available for MIG/MAG welding
methods for some time, the development of a fume extrac-
tion torch system specifically for TIG welding is a more
recent advancement. Consequently, there is a relative lack
of comprehensive knowledge and data regarding the effec-
tiveness of these systems in eliminating fumes during TIG
welding processes. This gap in information underscores the
need for further research and evaluation to fully understand
and optimize the use of fume extraction technology in TIG
welding, especially given the distinct nature of fumes gener-
ated by different welding techniques.
Overall, it is considered that while fume extraction
torches are important personal protection tools, their effi-
ciency can be influenced by numerous factors that need to be
carefully considered for optimal use. These challenges have
led to ongoing research aimed at improving the long-term
effectiveness of this fume capture system.
In summary, welding represents considerable health risks
to workers, and despite various technological and regula-
tory efforts, many challenges remain in reducing exposure
to hazardous substances effectively. Fume extraction torches
offer a potential solution but are hindered by ergonomic and
technical challenges. In this work, we report an experimental
measurement of an on-torch fume extraction TIG welding
torch’s effectivity on nanoparticle elimination during the
welding.
Welding in the World
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Welding experiments
Bead on plate welding was done by trained welding per-
sonnel, using Rehm TIGER® 180DC (Rehm GmbH u.
Co, Uhingen, Germany) power source, WT40 electrode
(W + 4 m%ThO) in 2.4-mm diameter, and 99.996 Ar
shielding gas (Linde Hungary, Répcelak, Hungary) with
flow rate of 6 l/min. The base material was 1.0038 grade
non-alloy structural steel plate in 3 mmthickness, with the
nominal chemical composition of ­C max, 0.17%; ­M n max,
1.4%; ­Pmax, 0.035%; S­ max, 0.035%; C­ umax, 0.055%; C
­ max,
0.17%; and ­Nmax, 0.015%, respectively. The filler mate-
rial was a Ø 2.4-mm TigRod 12.64® (G4Si1/ER70S-6)
with the nominal chemical composition of C, 0.08%; Si,
0.8%; and Mn, 1.28% (ESAB, Göteborg, Sveden). The
welding current was set to 80A, and the welding position
PA, respectively. For the experiments, an Abicor Binzel
xFume® TIG torch, connected to an Abicor Binzel FEC-
W3 cyclone high vacuum fume extractor (Alexander Bin-
zel Schweisstechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Buseck, Germany)
was used. The on torch air-shutter valve was set to minimal
airflow. The control measurements were done using tra-
ditional Abicor Binzel Abitig Grip 26® TIG torch. One
welding experiment lasted 15 min, 5 min between the test
runs. The three measurements were done for both with
the fume extractor torch and the control setup (conven-
tional welding torch). The schematic diagram of the weld-
ing shop is shown in the Fig. 1. During the process, the
door (2000 × 750 mm) was completely open to enhance the
natural ventilation. The physical dimensions of the weld-
ing torch is shown in the Fig. 2.
2.2 Nanoparticle concentration measurement
The measurement was done using a Testo DiscMini®
nanoparticle counter device (Testo SE & Co. KGaA, Tit-
isee-Neustadt, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. The sampling head was mounted on the apron
of the welder, near to the shoulder to ensure for to sample
the breathing zone air.
2.3 Local fume extraction
The welding has taken place in an open welding chamber
(600 × 500 × 600) connected to a Kemper SmartMaster®
LEV device (Kemper GmBh, Wreden, Germany). The
extraction tube of the LEV was installed to the upper-left
side of the welding chamber, without the original hood
unit. Otherwise, the LEV unit was utilized according to the
Welding in the World

Fig. 1  Schematic layout of the

welding shop, showing the posi-
tion of the welding chamber,
the local exhaust ventilation
(LEV) and the Binzel FEC W3
devices, including the direction
of the exhaust air from the FEC
W3. The shown dimensions are
measured in meter

Fig. 2  Images showing the

xFume® TIG torchs’ ceramic
nozzle and the fume extrac-
tion pathway around the nozzle
(rightmost image, black “ring”
around the gas lens). The black
plate on the back of the neck of
the torch is an air-shutter valve
to regulate extraction flow. The
raster size in the background is
10 mm

instructions of the manufacturer; all parameters (like airflow,
etc.) were considered as nominal.
2.4 Statistical analysis of the data
The measurement data were analyzed using R statisti-
cal software. The normal distribution of the datasets was
tested by Shapiro–Wilk test, the datasets were compared
with Kruskal–Wallis H test. The level of significance was
considered as 0.05 in each cases. The Shapiro–Wilk test is
a widely used statistical method for assessing the normal-
ity of a data distribution. Developed by Samuel Shapiro
and Martin Wilk in 1965, it evaluates the hypothesis that a
given sample comes from a normally distributed population.
The test calculates a W statistic, representing the correla-
tion between the data and the corresponding normal scores.
A significant deviation of the W statistic from its expected
value under normality implies non-normality of the data.
This test is particularly effective for small sample sizes,
making it a preferred choice in many scientific studies [25].
The Kruskal–Wallis H test is a non-parametric method
used to compare three or more groups. It is an extension of
the Mann–Whitney U test and is applied when the assump-
tions of ANOVA, such as normality, are not met. This test
ranks all data across groups, comparing these ranks to deter-
mine significant differences. It is ideal for ordinal or continu-
ous data and does not assume a normal distribution [26].
3 Results and discussion
During the welding process, the release of welding fumes is
effectively mitigated through the utilization of a specialized
TIG fume extraction head attached to the front end of the
 Welding in the World

welding torch. This extraction head efficiently captures air
directly from the source, within the welder’s breathing zone,
and its effectiveness was meticulously assessed.
In Fig. 3, we can observe the average nanoparticle count
and its variations measured within the breathing zone,
emanating from both conventional and extraction-type TIG
welding torches. In the case of the conventional TIG torch,
during the initial experimental period, the device recorded
an average of 237,000 nanoparticles per cubic centimeter
of air. During the subsequent measurement, this count
significantly escalated, reaching nearly 700,000 nanopar-
ticles (NP)/cm 3 (with a standard deviation of 195,000).
In the third measurement, we consistently recorded an
average of 534,000 particles (with a standard deviation of
267,000). The differences between the groups are caused
by uneven torch position and by differences between the
actual natural ventilation of the workshop. Conversely,
when employing the fume extraction TIG torch, none of
our measurements exceeded 70,000 NP/cm3. Specifically,
during the first measurement, we registered an average
count of 57,000, followed by 62,500 in the second, and
nearly 70,000 NP/cm3 in the third measurement. Notably,
the standard deviations of the measured particle counts
exhibited significantly reduced values, measuring 7.814,
26.643, and 39.120, respectively. During these welding
runs, we tried to ensure the same ventilation conditions,

Fig. 3  Average nanoparti-

cle count results of different
conventional (control, red)
and fume extraction TIG torch
(green) welding test runs. At
the end of the diagram, the
summarized control- and fume
extraction results are shown
crosshatched; the asterisk is
showing the statistically sig-
nificant difference between the
summarized data

Fig. 4  Nanoparticle counts vs.

time graph during the 15-min
welding runs using conventional
TIG torch
Welding in the World
but the alterations in the torch positions were the same as
above, since the welding was done by hand.
In Fig. 4, the particle count emitted over time by the con-
ventional TIG welding torch can be seen. It is discernible
that, despite periodic fluctuations, the particle count pro-
gressively increases with time, surpassing the threshold of
500,000 NP/cm3 by the 15-min mark in all three measure-
ments, and even exceeding 800,000 NP/cm3 in two instances.
This suggests that the natural ventilation of the workspace
was insufficient, allowing the nanoparticle (NP) count to rise
to such high levels. Additionally, the data implies that these
values would have continued to escalate had the welding
persisted beyond the 15-min mark.
Conversely, when employing the extraction-type TIG
welding torch, the concentration of nanoparticles measured
within the breathing zone consistently remained significantly
lower throughout the 15-min welding process as shown in
Fig. 5. Concentrations ranged from 50,000 to 60,000 NP/
cm3 in the majority of time intervals. This figure vividly
illustrates that, during the first measurement, the NP count
consistently remained low, while in the second measure-
ment, it momentarily surged to 200,000 NP/cm3 for 1-min
intervals at the 6th and 13th min. In the final measurement,
we encountered only one noteworthy peak, reaching 278,000
particles around the 8th min. These accidental high fume
generations may be caused by burning off some unnoticed
impurities during the welding process. The plot suggests
that there was no accumulation of NP in the breathing area,
unlike in the case of the conventional welding torch.
Based on the results obtained from both conven-
tional and extraction-type TIG welding torches, it can be
Fig. 5  Nanoparticle counts vs.
time graph during the 15 min
welding runs using fume extrac-
tion TIG torch
conclusively asserted that there exists a statistically sig-
nificant difference in airborne nanoparticle concentration,
favoring the utilization of the extraction-type TIG torch.
This conclusion is supported by the result of the statisti-
cal comparison of the data, which has shown significant
difference between the conventional and extraction-type
measurement groups (p value < 2.2 × ­10−16). This result is
also demonstrated in Fig. 3, at the end of the graph.
Welder protection from fume exposure has become
increasingly crucial in recent times. All welding meth-
ods, especially the TIG technique, emit ultrafine parti-
cles. Even though TIG welding produces a low amount
of PM10-PM2.5 particles, deeming it almost smokeless,
it is significant to note that this method also produces a
considerable amount of nanoparticles [27, 28]. Despite
being solid, due to the size range, the diffusibility of these
particles is behaving much like gases. These nanoparti-
cles have recently attracted significant attention due to
the associated potential health risks. Especially following
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
reclassification of welding fumes as a category 1, proven
carcinogenic, the urge to eliminate these particles effec-
tively from the air has surged [2].
Although fume extraction torches for MIG/MAG tech-
nology have been available for a while, their initial recep-
tion among welders was lukewarm, mainly because of the
added weight and bulkiness. Thankfully, this situation is
changing, and on-torch extraction is now not only avail-
able for MIG/MAG but also for TIG welding. Our research
compared the nanoparticle elimination capabilities of the
tested torch to traditional TIG welding under local exhaust
ventilation and general ventilation conditions.

4 Conclusions
We made bead on plate welding on plain carbon steel via
manual TIG welding. The employed moderate current set-
ting (80 A) in the welding experiments, is representative of
typical work conditions. Nanoparticle measurements were
made in the welders breathing zone applying commercial
TIG torch as control measurement and fume extraction torch
as well.
The investigated fume extraction TIG system consistently
showcased an effective extraction capacity. Compared to ear-
lier control values under identical welding parameters, the
on-torch extraction significantly reduced the nanoparticle
levels in the welder’s breathing zone. This aligns with past
measurements on MIG/MAG extraction torches as reported
by Flynn, and Susi, and Marconi and Bravaccini, and later
by Yapp et al. [19, 23, 29].
It is pivotal to acknowledge that while local exhaust ven-
tilation hoods are mostly operated manually, the extraction
torch’s proximity to the arc ensures optimal fume extraction
at the source. It must be emphasized that for best results,
nanoparticle-rich air should be entirely evacuated from the
workspace, given the challenges in filtering these particles
with current systems.
The TIG welding method, vital for joining metals like
stainless steel, was once considered virtually fumeless. How-
ever, recent studies have highlighted its substantial ultrafine
particle emissions, underscoring potential health hazards for
welders and adjacent workers. While the optimal defense
against these particulates has traditionally been a combina-
tion of LEV and adequate general ventilation, the advent of
on-torch extraction systems like xFume® offers welders an
enhanced layer of protection. Nevertheless, for maximized
safety, the extracted polluted air must be completely elimi-
nated from the workshop. Literature also indicates a poten-
tial inverse relationship between the efficiency of on-torch
extraction in MIG/MAG technology and the applied current
settings, suggesting potential saturation of the torch’s extrac-
tion capacity [24]. As it was mentioned in Section 2, we
used the fume extraction torch with full choke setting of the
air-shutter valve, so we are sure that there is considerable
reserve in the extraction capabilities of the examined TIG
system. We recognize the importance of further exploring
the saturation phenomenon in TIG technology extraction
torches.
Acknowledgements The xFume fume extraction TIG torch and the
FEC W3 high vacuum fume extractor were provided for the meas-
urement by the Cooptim Weld Technology Limited, Székesfehérvár,
Hungary. The authors thank the National Research, Development and
Innovation Office, Budapest, Hungary, for their financial support.
Author contribution Experimental design: Csaba Kővágó and Kornél
Májlinger, data evaluation, statistical analysis: Csaba Kővágó and Éva
Welding in the World
Szűcs-Somlyó, manuscript writing: Csaba Kővágó, Éva Szűcs-Somlyó,
manuscript revision: Kornél Májlinger, József Lehel, graph drawing:
Kornél Májlinger.
Funding Open access funding provided by University of Veterinary
Medicine. This research was funded by the National Research, Devel-
opment and Innovation Office under grant FK_18 ID: 129055. This
study was supported by the strategic research fund of the University of
Veterinary Medicine Budapest (Grant No. SRF-001).
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Honaryar MK, Lunn RM, Luce D, Ahrens W, Tmannetje A,
Hansen J, Bouaoun L, Loomis D, Byrnes G, Vilahur N, Stayner L,
Guha N (2019) Welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of
case-control and cohort studies. Occup Environ Med. 76(6):422–
431. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​oemed-​2018-​105447
2. IARC (2018) Welding, molybdenum trioxide, and indium tin
oxide. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
3. Flynn MR, Susi P (2009) Neurological risks associated with man-
ganese exposure from welding operations - a literature review. Int
J Hyg Envir Heal 212(5):459–469. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.i​ jheh.​
2008.​12.​003
4. Pesch B, Lehnert M, Weiss T, Kendzia B, Menne E, Lotz A,
Heinze E, Behrens T, Gabriel S, Schneider W, Brüning T (2018)
Exposure to hexavalent chromium in welders: results of the WEL-
DOX II field study. Ann Work Expos Heal 62(3):351–361. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1093/​annweh/​wxy004
5. Racette BA, Nielsen SS, Criswell SR, Sheppard L, Seixas N,
Warden MN, Checkoway H (2017) Dose-dependent progres-
sion of Parkinsonism in manganese-exposed welders. Neurology
88(4):344–351. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1212/​Wnl.​00000​00000​003533
6. McMillan G (2005) Is electric arc welding linked to manganism
or Parkinson’s disease? Toxicol Rev 24(4):237–257. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​2165/​00139​709-​20052​4040-​00004
7. Lehnert M, Pesch B, Lotz A, Pelzer J, Kendzia B, Gawrych K,
Heinze E, Van Gelder R, Punkenburg E, Weiss T, Mattenklott M,
Hahn JU, Möhlmann C, Berges M, Hartwig A, Brüning T, Grp
WS (2012) Exposure to inhalable, respirable, and ultrafine parti-
cles in welding fume. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):557–567. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1093/​annhyg/​mes025
8. Jenkins NT, Eagar TW (2005) Chemical analysis of welding fume
particles - airborne particle size is the most important factor in
determining the accuracy of a method for chemical analysis. Weld
J 84(6):87s–93s
Welding in the World
9. Siew SS, Kauppinen T, Kyyrönen P, Heikkilä P, Pukkala E (2010)
Occupational exposure to iron and welding fumes and the risk of
lung cancer. Eur J Public Health 20:15–16
10. Kendzia B, Van Gelder R, Schwank T, Hagemann C, Zschiesche
W, Behrens T, Weiss T, Brüning T, Pesch B (2017) Occupational
exposure to inhalable manganese at German workplaces. Ann
Work Expos Heal 61(9):1108–1117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​
annweh/​wxx080
11. Kendzia B, Koppisch D, Van Gelder R, Gabriel S, Zschiesche W,
Behrens T, Brüning T, Pesch B (2019) Modelling of exposure to
respirable and inhalable welding fumes at German workplaces.
J Occup Environ Hyg 16(6):400–409. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15459​624.​2019.​15667​34
12. Pesch B, Kendzia B, Pohlabeln H, Ahrens W, Wichmann HE,
Siemiatycki J, Taeger D, Zschiesche W, Behrens T, Jöckel
KH, Brüning T (2019) Exposure to welding fumes, hexavalent
chromium, or nickel and risk of lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol
188(11):1984–1993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​aje/​kwz187
13. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2017)
Technical rule for hazardous substances (TRGS) 561: Activi-
ties involving carcinogenic metals and their compounds. GMBI
43. 786–812. https://​www.​baua.​de/​EN/​Servi​ce/​Techn​ical-​r ules/​
TRGS/​TRGS-​561.​html
14. Ojima J (2006) Performance of a fume-exhaust gun system in CO
arc welding. J Occup Health 48(3):207–209. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1539/​Joh.​48.​207
15. ISO (2017) ISO 15011-4:2017: Health and safety in welding and
allied processes. Laboratory method for sampling fume and gases
Part 4: Fume data sheets. Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–12
16. Costa L (2014) Correlation between the welding process and the
development of fumes: characterization, analysis and risk manage-
ment. Weld Int 28(9):700–707. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/0​ 95071​ 16.​
2012.​753267
17. Carpenter KR, Monaghan BJ, Norrish J (2009) Analysis of fume
formation rate and fume particle composition for gas metal arc
welding (GMAW) of plain carbon steel using different shielding
gas compositions. Isij Int 49(3):416–420. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2355/​
isiji​ntern​ation​al.​49.​416
18. Egerland SA, Wiesinger M, Sharma R, Ebert B (2023) Experi-
mental study of measures preventing welders from fume expo-
sure. Welding in the World 67(1):1–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40194-​022-​01395-1
19. Yapp D, Lawmon J, Castner H (2001) Development of lightweight
fume extraction welding guns. National Shipbuilding Research-
Program SP-7 Welding Panel, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Columbus, OH 1–45. https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​
23508​4222_​Devel​opment_​of_​Light​weight_​Fume_​Extra​ction_​
Weldi​ng_​Guns
20. Mario Marconi Albano, Bravaccini, (2010) Capture efficiency
of integral fume extraction torches for GMA welding — Part 2.
Welding in the World 54(3–4):15–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
BF032​63486
21. Rösemann B, Dreller S, Goebel A (2009) The new TRGS 528 on
welding work. Gefahrstoffe, Reinhaltung der Luft. 69:286–290
22. Ajit Godbole Paul, John Cooper, Norrish, (2010) Design and opti-
mization of a novel on-torch fume extraction device using CFD
and fluid simulation. Welding in the World 54(3–4):R80–R86.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF032​63491
23. Flynn MR, Susi P (2012) Local exhaust ventilation for the control
of welding fumes in the construction industry-a literature review.
Ann Occup Hyg 56(7):764–776. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​annhyg/​
mes018
24. Bonthoux F (2016) Factors affecting the capture efficiency of a
fume extraction torch for gas metal arc welding. Ann Occup Hyg
60(6):761–770. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​annhyg/​mew016
25. King AP, Eckersley RJ (2019) Chapter 7 - inferential statistics IV:
choosing a hypothesis test. In: King AP, Eckersley RJ (eds) Statis-
tics for Biomedical Engineers and Scientists. Academic Press, pp
147–171. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​08-​102939-​8.​00016-5
26. Xia Y (2020) Chapter Eleven - correlation and association analy-
ses in microbiome study integrating multiomics in health and
disease. In: Sun J (ed) Progress in Molecular Biology and Trans-
lational Science, vol 171. Academic Press, pp 309–491. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/​bs.​pmbts.​2020.​04.​003
27. Brand P, Lenz K, Reisgen U, Kraus T (2013) Number size distri-
bution of fine and ultrafine fume particles from various welding
processes. Ann Occup Hyg 57(3):305–313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1093/​annhyg/​mes070
28. Berlinger B, Benker N, Weinbruch S, L’Vov B, Ebert M, Koch
W, Ellingsen DG, Thomassen Y (2011) Physicochemical char-
acterisation of different welding aerosols. Anal Bioanal Chem
399(5):1773–1780. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00216-​010-​4185-7
29. Meeker JD, Susi P, Flynn MR (2010) Hexavalent chromium
exposure and control in welding tasks. J Occup Environ Hyg
7(11):607–615. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15459​624.​2010.​510105
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.