Jens Bertram1, Peter Brand2, Laura Hartmann2, Thomas Schettgen2, Veronika Kossack2, Klaus Lenz3, Ellwyn Purrio3, Uwe Reisgen3, Thomas Kraus2. 1. Medical Faculty, Institute for Occupational Medicine and Social Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. jbertram@ukaachen.de. 2. Medical Faculty, Institute for Occupational Medicine and Social Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 3. ISF - Welding and Joining Institute, Aachen University of Technology, Pontstr. 49, 52062, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several existing field studies evaluate aluminium welding works but no thoroughly controlled exposure scenario for welding fume has been described yet. This study provides information about the uptake and elimination of aluminium from welding fumes under controlled conditions. METHODS: In the Aachen Workplace Simulation Laboratory, we are able to generate welding fumes of a defined particle mass concentration. We exposed 12, until then occupationally unexposed participants with aluminium-containing welding fumes of a metal inert gas (MIG) welding process of a total dust mass concentration of 2.5 mg/m(3) for 6 h. Room air filter samples were collected, and the aluminium concentration in air derived. Urine and plasma samples were collected directly before and after the 6-h lasting exposure, as well as after 1 and 7 days. Human biomonitoring methods were used to determine the aluminium content of the samples with high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry. RESULTS: Urinary aluminium concentrations showed significant changes after exposure compared to preexposure levels (mean t(1) (0 h) 13.5 µg/L; mean t(2) (6 h) 23.5 µg/L). Plasma results showed the same pattern but pre-post comparison did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect a significant increase of the internal aluminium burden of a single MIG aluminium welding process in urine, while plasma failed significance. Biphasic elimination kinetic can be observed. The German BAT of 60 µg/g creatinine was not exceeded, and urinary aluminium returned nearly to baseline concentrations after 7 days.
PURPOSE: Several existing field studies evaluate aluminium welding works but no thoroughly controlled exposure scenario for welding fume has been described yet. This study provides information about the uptake and elimination of aluminium from welding fumes under controlled conditions. METHODS: In the Aachen Workplace Simulation Laboratory, we are able to generate welding fumes of a defined particle mass concentration. We exposed 12, until then occupationally unexposed participants with aluminium-containing welding fumes of a metal inert gas (MIG) welding process of a total dust mass concentration of 2.5 mg/m(3) for 6 h. Room air filter samples were collected, and the aluminium concentration in air derived. Urine and plasma samples were collected directly before and after the 6-h lasting exposure, as well as after 1 and 7 days. Human biomonitoring methods were used to determine the aluminium content of the samples with high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry. RESULTS: Urinary aluminium concentrations showed significant changes after exposure compared to preexposure levels (mean t(1) (0 h) 13.5 µg/L; mean t(2) (6 h) 23.5 µg/L). Plasma results showed the same pattern but pre-post comparison did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect a significant increase of the internal aluminium burden of a single MIG aluminium welding process in urine, while plasma failed significance. Biphasic elimination kinetic can be observed. The German BAT of 60 µg/g creatinine was not exceeded, and urinary aluminium returned nearly to baseline concentrations after 7 days.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aluminium; Biomonitoring; Metal inert gas welding; Welding fumes
Authors: P Brand; P Havlicek; M Steiners; K Holzinger; U Reisgen; T Kraus; M Gube Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-02-05 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Tomasz Wittczak; Wojciech Dudek; Jolanta Walusiak-Skorupa; Dominika Świerczyńska-Machura; Wojciech Cader; Monika Kowalczyk; Cezary Pałczyński Journal: Int J Occup Med Environ Health Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: Bernd Rossbach; Mark Buchta; György A Csanády; Johannes G Filser; Wolfgang Hilla; Klaus Windorfer; Joachim Stork; Wolfgang Zschiesche; Olaf Gefeller; Annette Pfahlberg; Karl-Heinz Schaller; Ellen Egerer; Luis Carlos Escobar Pinzón; Stephan Letzel Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2005-11-08 Impact factor: 4.372
Authors: V Riihimäki; H Hänninen; R Akila; T Kovala; E Kuosma; H Paakkulainen; S Valkonen; B Engström Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Ernst Kiesswetter; M Schäper; M Buchta; K H Schaller; B Rossbach; T Kraus; S Letzel Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: K T Palmer; R M C McNeill Love; R McNeill-Love; J R Poole; D Coggon; A J Frew; C H Linaker; J K Shute Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Karl H Schaller; György Csanady; Johannes Filser; Barbara Jüngert; Hans Drexler Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2007-02-24 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Piotr Rzymski; Przemysław Niedzielski; Barbara Poniedziałek; Katarzyna Tomczyk; Paweł Rzymski Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.318