Controlling solder fume

In a previous post I discussed the health risks associated with exposure to the fume generated during soldering with rosin cored solder. It’s a respiratory sensitiser, and is one of the main causes of occupational asthma in Great Britain.

The fume is generated due to thermal degradation of the flux – usually containing colophony (also known as rosin), which is manufactured from pine resin, and is usually contained within the soldering wire (rosin cored solder.   The flux is needed to prevent oxidation of components, remove contaminants from the surface of the components, and reduce the surface tension of the molten solder. When heated during soldering it vapourises and condenses into fine particles, which form the fume which is usually clearly visible as a white smoke. Thermal degradation of the colophony also generates irritant gases.

In an ideal world we would try to eliminate the risk by using an alternative, rosin free flux. However, this is difficult in practice and most alternatives I’ve come across still generate harmful fume. The amount of fume can be reduced by controlling the soldering temperature. However some fume will still be evolved. So local exhaust ventilation is likely to be needed to minimise the risk to health whenever soldering is being undertaken.

One of the most common type of of extraction system used in workplaces where soldering takes place is the flexible arm captor hood. As I’ve described in a previous post, the problem with external captor hoods like this is that airflow drops off very rapidly with distance from the face of the hood. Positioning is crucial, particularly with solder fume which is hot and rises in a narrow plume before dispersing. Operators tend to position the hoods too far away from the source as moving them close enough would obstruct and interfere with their work. Also, any ambient air movement in the workplace can disrupt the airflow from the extraction, further reducing their ability to capture the fume. Consequently, this type of system is usually ineffective at controlling exposure.

Dorman, Southport -  May 2010 003

Another common approach is to install a low volume high velocity (LVHV) system. Here, a small metal tube is attached to the soldering iron, the idea being to capture the fume close to source. The metal tube is then connected to extract ducting via flexible plastic tubing. In principal this should be much more effective then using the flexible arm hoods.

Dorman Unipart Feb 2009 018

However, there are a couple of problems which often render these ineffective. First of all operators rarely position the tube close enough to the tip of the soldering iron where the fume is generated, pleading that the tubes “gets in the way of the work”. Secondly, fume that is captured condenses out inside the metal tube and the associated plastic tubing. Unless these are cleaned out very regularly (and, in my experience, this rarely happens) airflow is seriously restricted, significantly reducing the capture velocity and the degree of control.

DSCF0009

Whenever local exhaust ventilation is being applied to attempt to control exposure to airborne contaminants, the best type of hood will usually be a partial enclosure which contains the source. In that case the contaminant doesn’t have to be captured – it is generated within the hood.  If sufficient airflow is provided to draw the contaminant away, and prevent it escaping from inside the hood, there is a good chance that effective control will be achieved. In the past, this approach has not typically been applied to soldering. However one company, working in conjunction with Health and safety Executive Inspectors, has developed such a solution.

image

Here, the booth is large enough to contain the work, without interfering with the task. It is constructed of transparent material, so the operator can clearly see what she is doing, while presenting a barrier between the fume and her “breathing zone”. The enclosure also minimises local air turbulence and draughts so that the solder fume rises within the enclosure, relatively undisturbed, and is then captured by the extraction, preventing the operator being exposed to the fume.

This type of hood is by far the most effective way of controlling exposure to solder fume and really needs to become the standard approach for the electronics industry. It is recommended by the HSE in their COSHH Essentials Control Sheet for soldering. Unfortunately employers tend to be quite conservative. Systems with captor hoods have been widely used for many years and it is not easy to convince employers that they’re not the most appropriate approach – particularly when they’ve spent a lot of money purchasing and installing them.

(Note: HSE have produced guidance on the hazards and legal requirements and on the control of rosin cored solder fume.)

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Controlling solder fume

  1. Thanks danny. I also agree with the comments you’ve made in yor blog post. Too often suppliers mis-sell ineffective measures that don’t control the fume but give users a false sense of security.

  2. I represent a small manufacturing company that has a very small percentage of lead soldering in production. We are using a down draft table to remove fumes. I need to know if there is any exposure data for this type of environment over an 8 hour day when one employee is soldering for up to 4 hours?

  3. Julie

    I don’t have any sample data for solder fumes where downdraught benches are used. My own view is that small enclosures are the best control approach but I believe that downdraught benches can be effective if they are well designed and, just as important, correctly used.

    HSE commissioned some research on the control of solder fume and had all the common types of LEV used for this application evaluated, including downdraught benches. You will probably find the report helpful. It can be accessed at

    http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr900.pdf

    One of their conclusions was “If used correctly the downdraught bench, the mobile capturing hood, the enclosure and
    the on-tip extraction system are all capable of reducing exposure to zero. ”

    I’m not entirely happy with the statement as we can never say exposure is “zero”, but certainly they seem capable reduce exposure substantially if set up and used correctly and well maintained

  4. You stated that you do not have any sample data for solder fumes where downdraft tables are used. Do you have any sample data that you could share?

    • We do have data where we’ve done sampling for solder fume, but it isn’t available for release I’m afraid.

  5. There really isn’t much of an excuse for not using some sort of capture hood: I rigged up a DIY version* by cutting part of an upside-down clear container out for my hands, cutting a hole in the top, and taping a powered (room) HEPA filter to the hole. I can’t make any claims/guarantees as to how effective it is – I have neither the means nor expertise required to measure the performance of my setup – but I’m pretty confident that it’s better than nothing. Total cost was barely $100, which isn’t really that bad.

    *the design was inspired by a hackaday post, which lacked any real filtration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s