Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Hewitt, M. Madden (1986)
WELDING PROCESS PARAMETERS AND HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM IN MIG FUMEAnnals of Occupational Hygiene, 30
Welding Operations (Updated)
(2002)
Evaluation of Cr ( VI ) Exposure Levels in the Shipbuilding Industry
(1987)
Environmental Protection Agency's AP-42 compilation of emission factors report)
(2003)
Guide for Estimating Welding Emissions for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ventilation Permit Reporting; AWS F1.6
Environmental Protection Agency's AP-42 Background Document
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Development of Particulate and Hazardous Emission Factors for Electric Arc Welding; AP-42, Section 12-19; Revised Final Report
William Mener, Lfr Levine-Fricke (2001)
Shipyard Welding Emission Factor Development
(2005)
Particle Size Distribution of Gas Metal and Flux Cored Arc Welding
C. Gray, P. Hewitt (1982)
Control of particulate emissions from electric-arc welding by process modification.The Annals of occupational hygiene, 25 4
W. Matczak, J. Chmielnicka, Medical Academy (1993)
Relation between various chromium compounds and some other elements in fumes from manual metal arc stainless steel welding.British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50
S. Mortazavi (1997)
ENGINEERING CONTROL OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO WELDING FUME BY PROCESS MODIFICATIONWelding in The World, 39
Zachary Jacobs (1995)
Characterizing Shipyard Welding Emissions and Associated Control Options (The National Shipbuilding Research Program)
Aspects Related to Controlling and Quantifying Cr and from Arc Welding. Presented at the A&WMA 101st Annual Conference and Exhibition
(1994)
Development of Particulate and Hazardous Emission Factors for Electric Arc Welding; AP-42, Section 12.19; Revised Final Report
(2002)
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response: Washington
Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites; OSWER 9285
(1988)
Evaluation of Cr(6) Exposure Levels in the Shipbuilding Industry, Final Report; Gulf Coast Region Maritime Technology
H. Castner (1996)
Fume generation rates for stainless steel, nickel and aluminum alloysWelding Journal, 75
Daniel Chang, R. Krone, M. Yun (2004)
Improving Welding Toxic Metal Emission Estimates in California
(2008)
Aspects Related to Controlling and Quantifying Cr and from Arc Welding
(2003)
Welding Fume Study; National Steel and Shipbuilding
W. Heung, M. Yun, D. Chang, P. Green, C. Halm (2007)
Emissions of Chromium (VI) from Arc WeldingJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 57
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
ProUCL Version 3.0 User Guide
TM-770 by Tri-Mark
Emission Factors for Flux Cored Rod Used in Gas Shielding Processes
(2003)
Guide for Estimating Welding Emissions for EPA and Ventilation Permit Reporting; AWS F1.6
J. McIlwain, L. Neumeier (1987)
Fumes from shielded metal arc welding electrodes
(2003)
Welding Fume Study; National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair-Residual Risk-Proposed Emission Factors For Stainless Steels, Mild Steel, and Alloy Steels
(2005)
Particle Size Distribution of Gas Metal and Flux Cored Arc Welding Fumes; Weld
(2000)
Welding Fume Analysis Study; ESAB Welding and Cutting Products; National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Development of Particulate and Hazardous Emission Factors for Electric Arc Welding
Abstract Knowledge of the emission rate and release characteristics is necessary for estimating pollutant fate and transport. Because emission measurements at a facility’s fence line are generally not readily available, environmental agencies in many countries are using emission factors (EFs) to indicate the quantity of certain pollutants released into the atmosphere from operations such as welding. The amount of fumes and metals generated from a welding process is dependent on many parameters, such as electrode composition, voltage, and current. Because test reports on fume generation provide different levels of detail, a common approach was used to give a test report a quality rating on the basis of several highly subjective criteria; however, weighted average EFs generated in this way are not meant to reflect data precision or to be used for a refined risk analysis. The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the unknown population mean was used in this study to account for the uncertainty in the EF test data. Several parametric UCLs were computed and compared for multiple welding EFs associated with several mild, stainless, and alloy steels. Also, several nonparametric statistical methods, including several bootstrap procedures, were used to compute 95% UCLs. For the nonpara-metric methods, a distribution for calculating the mean, standard deviation, and other statistical parameters for a dataset does not need to be assumed. There were instances when the sample size was small and instances when EFs for an electrode/process combination were not found. Those two points are addressed in this paper. Finally, this paper is an attempt to deal with the uncertainty in the value of a mean EF for an electrode/process combination that is based on test data from several laboratories. Welding EFs developed with a defined level of confidence may be used as input parameters for risk assessment.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association – Taylor & Francis
Published: May 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.