ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Quantifying relevant exposure determinants and conditions of use for welding emissions.
Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying relevant exposure determinants and conditions of use for welding emissions.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Particle emission rates and conditions of use for the cutting of biobased composite polyurethane foam.Open research Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conditions of Use (CoU) defines the operational conditions and risk management measures that result in adequately controlled exposure. It is mandatory to provide CoUs in Exposure Scenarios for the REACH legislation. CoU assessment based on similar exposure groups is a case-specific approach and not very efficient. We demonstrate how to quantify relevant exposure determinants and find optimal CoUs for welding using probabilistic exposure modelling. Methods: Single and two-compartment models were applied to calculate exposure levels under specified conditions for five welding processes with the highest emissions. Model performance was tested using independently reported emissions and two field measurement studies. Results: Welding fume concentrations were predicted within the range of 0.93 to 3.4 times the measured levels for three different welding scenarios, where two scenarios were repeated with four and five different ventilation rates. CoUs were quantified for welding with five different electrodes when welding is performed without local exhaust ventilation controls, with a fume extraction torch, and with local exhaust ventilation. The exposure level was adequately controlled for three electrodes when controls were applied. Exposure assessment refinement proposals were given based on the relevant exposure determinants. The maximum emission factor was calculated for total fume emissions. A proposal for emission labelling was established. Conclusions: CoU quantification was successfully demonstrated for total welding fume emissions. CoU results can be applied for welding processes where emissions are less than specified for the operational conditions specified here. Only total fume emissions were considered here, which may not be the limiting factor for risk; volatile and individual metal emissions were not considered. The approach applies to point sources for which emissions are adequately characterized. CoU assessment can be used to develop emission labelling and process specific safety actions. Compared to the traditional case-specific approach, modeling using this general approach will significantly improve cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.