工作中的焊接烟尘暴露被认为是公众健康的已知问题。本研究旨在使用两种不同的提取方式评估焊接过程中产生的焊接烟雾，并比较它们的影响。对印度侵蚀区的国内电弧焊工进行了全面评估，以评估他们对焊接气体的暴露。调查结果选择了气体保护金属电弧焊（GMAW）工艺以供将来研究。在本研究中使用不锈钢级SS316L。要焊接3毫米，5-mm,和6毫米厚的不锈钢试样,使用ER316L填充焊丝和四种保护气体组合物。两个不同的，具有方形管道部分和圆锥形管道部分的具有成本效益的焊接罩被构造为检查焊接气体。将产生的烟雾收集在240mm玻璃纤维过滤器上,并在焊接过程中重新称重。研究了5、10和15LPM的气体流量，电流强度为150A，200A,275A。已经进行了一种新颖的尝试来比较使用两种提取模式获得的烟雾形成速率（FFR）。根据这次调查,锥形导管段的焊接通风柜比方形导管段提取更多的焊接气体。比较了使用两种提取模式的提取率。此外，向任何保护气体混合物中添加CO2导致更高的烟雾形成速率。实验FFR值非常接近美国焊接协会(AWS)规范。这一发现还揭示了焊工的社会人口特征，比如年龄,婚姻状况,教育水平,和工作经验,影响了他们对职业危害和个人防护设备(PPEs)的认识。因此,应高度重视危险识别教育，并在侵蚀区及其周围的小型焊工中严格执行适当的PPEs使用，以保护焊工免受各种危险。
Welding fume exposure at work is recognized as a known concern for public health. This study aims to assess the welding fumes produced during welding using two different extraction patterns and to compare their influences. A thorough assessment of domestic arc welders in the erode district of India was done to assess their exposure to welding gases. The survey results chose the gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process for future investigation. The stainless-steel grade SS 316 L was used in this study. To weld 3-mm, 5-mm, and 6-mm-thick stainless-steel specimens, ER316 L filler wire and four shielding gas compositions were used. Two distinct, cost-effective welding hoods with a square duct section and a conical duct section were constructed to examine welding gases. The produced fume was collected on a 240 mm glass fibre filter and re-weighted during welding. Gas flow rates of 5, 10, and 15 LPM were investigated, with current intensities of 150A, 200A, and 275A. A novel attempt has been made to compare fume formation rates (FFR) obtained using two extraction patterns. According to this investigation, weld fume hoods with conical duct sections extract more welding gases than square duct sections. The extraction rate using two extraction patterns was compared. Furthermore, the addition of CO2 to any shielding gas mixture results in a higher fume formation rate. The experimental FFR values were quite close to the American Welding Society (AWS) specifications. This finding also revealed that welders\' socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, marital status, level of education, and work experience, influenced their awareness of occupational hazards and personal protection equipment (PPEs). As a result, there should be a strong emphasis on hazard identification education and strict enforcement of proper PPEs use among small-scale welders in and around the erode district to protect welders from a variety of hazards.
