Welding fume nanoparticles from solid and flux-cored wires: Solubility, toxicity, and role of fluorides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welding fume particles are hazardous. Their toxicity likely depends on their composition and reactivity. This study aimed at exploring the role of sodium or other fluorides (NaF), which are intentionally added to flux-cored wire electrodes for stainless steel welding, on the solubility (in phosphate buffered saline) and toxicity of the generated welding fume particles. A multi-analytical particle characterization approach along with in-vitro cell assays was undertaken. The release of Cr(VI) and Mn from the particles was tested as a function of fluoride solution concentration. The welding fume particles containing NaF released significantly higher amounts of Cr(VI) compared with solid wire reference fumes, which was associated with increased cytotoxicity and genotoxicity in-vitro. No crystalline Na or potassium (K) containing chromates were observed. Cr(VI) was incorporated in an amorphous mixed oxide. Solution-added fluorides did not increase the solubility of Cr(VI), but contributed to a reduced Mn release from both solid and flux-cored wire fume particles and the reduction of Cr(VI) release from solid wire fume particles. Chemical speciation modeling suggested that metal fluoride complexes were not formed. The presence of NaF in the welding electrodes did not have any direct, but possibly an indirect, role in the Cr(VI) solubility of welding fumes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".