Laser-generated air contaminants (LGACs) are airborne pollutants produced when high-powered lasers interact with materials through processes like cutting, ablation, or thermal decomposition. These interactions often result in the release of hazardous substances into the air.1
Image Credit: glavbooh/Shutterstock.com
LGACs may include toxic gases, chemical vapors, nanoparticles, bioaerosols, and particulate matter. Depending on the material, laser decomposition can produce carcinogenic particles like crystalline silica or hexavalent chromium, as well as harmful gases such as hydrogen chloride or hydrogen fluoride.1
As high-powered laser systems become more widely used across industries, identifying and mitigating the risks associated with LGACs is essential for maintaining a safe working environment and protecting operator health.
How They Are Produced
LGACs are formed when high-powered lasers—typically Class 3B or Class 4—interact with materials, causing vaporization, melting, or thermal decomposition. As laser energy is absorbed, it heats the target material, breaking it down at the molecular level. Although the original materials may not be hazardous, laser exposure can alter their composition and create new airborne byproducts.2
In many cases, this decomposition results in the release of airborne particulates or gases that were not present before laser exposure. These emissions can include carcinogenic particles like crystalline silica (from glass or optics) and hexavalent chromium (from stainless steel), as well as toxic gases such as hydrogen chloride or hydrogen fluoride.2
Factors Influencing Contaminants
The composition and concentration of LGACs are influenced by several key variables, including the type of material, laser power and mode, beam irradiance, and environmental conditions. These factors collectively determine the types and quantities of airborne substances generated during laser operations.3,4
Material type is a primary determinant. Different substrates release different mixtures of gases and particulates when exposed to laser energy. For example, in a study by Spörri et al., cutting pig tissue with CO₂ lasers produced a different chemical profile than excimer lasers. The latter generated higher levels of aromatic compounds, such as ethylbenzene and styrene, which were absent in emissions from CO₂ lasers.4,5
Laser power and beam irradiance also significantly affect the quantity of LGACs. Higher laser power generally correlates with increased production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic gases.
For example, when comparing 10 W and 30 W lasers, the emissions of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and styrene were substantially higher at 30 W. Specifically, 30 W lasers released up to 319 µg/g of toluene and 56 µg/g of ethylbenzene, while 10 W lasers emitted far lower concentrations of the same compounds.4
Power density and cutting speed also influence contaminant output. In one study using a 20 W CO₂ laser, lower power density (0.057 kW/cm²) produced higher overall VOC emissions than higher power density (3.18 kW/cm²).4
This suggests that not just intensity, but how energy is distributed across the target surface, affects chemical release. Similarly, slower cutting speeds were associated with higher contaminant concentrations, as longer laser exposure time leads to more thermal decomposition.4
Download your PDF copy now!
Health Risks
Exposure to LGACs presents a range of health hazards, from short-term irritation to long-term systemic effects.
These emissions often contain nanoparticles and chemical vapors capable of penetrating deep into the lungs and, in some cases, entering the bloodstream. Common constituents include VOCs, toxic gases, and fine particulate matter, many of which are known to cause respiratory irritation, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity.4
Toxic gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), benzene, and toluene are frequently detected in laser plumes. CO impairs oxygen transport in the blood, potentially leading to symptoms like headache, dizziness, and, in severe cases, hypoxia or death.6
VOCs like benzene and toluene are respiratory irritants. Benzene is a known human carcinogen, while toluene has been linked to neurological impairment and organ toxicity with prolonged exposure. Formaldehyde can trigger asthma and mucosal irritation and has been associated with certain cancers of the upper respiratory tract.6,7
Particulate matter, especially in the fine and ultrafine size range, also poses risks. These particles can reach the deep lung regions, contributing to conditions like bronchitis, asthma, and chronic respiratory disease.8
In clinical settings, LGACs may also carry bioaerosols such as bacteria or viruses. While the risk of infection is generally low, there have been rare documented cases of viral transmission (e.g., human papillomavirus) to healthcare professionals have been documented following exposure to laser plumes during surgical procedures.4, 6
Safety Measures
Minimizing exposure to LGACs begins with a thorough risk assessment. Before any laser-based process is conducted, both the materials and laser parameters should be evaluated to assess the potential for contaminant generation.
This includes consulting Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for known decomposition products and conducting qualitative or quantitative assessments to compare projected exposure levels against Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs).
In cases where lasers interact with high-risk materials—such as silica-containing optics or chromium-based alloys—risk assessments should take a precautionary approach, assuming a worst-case emission profile and identifying the most hazardous byproducts involved.1,2
Once potential hazards are characterized, appropriate control measures must be applied. The hierarchy of controls offers a structured approach. While personal protective equipment (PPE) is important, it is the least effective method when used in isolation.
Engineering controls, particularly local exhaust ventilation (LEV) systems, are more effective. LEV units are designed to capture and remove contaminants directly at the source, preventing harmful substances from reaching the operator’s breathing zone.1
HEPA-filtered vacuums can also be used to clean up residual dust and minimize dermal contact. In experiments or operations where contaminant levels are expected to exceed OELs—such as those involving crystalline silica, hexavalent chromium, or hydrogen fluoride—LEV systems and, in some cases, real-time air monitoring are critical.1-2
In addition to technical controls, adherence to OSHA regulations (e.g., 29 CFR 1910.1053 for crystalline silica and 1910.1026 for hexavalent chromium) is mandatory. These standards define permissible exposure limits, action levels, and required protective measures if thresholds are exceeded.1, 9
Employers may also choose to follow more stringent guidelines from organizations like the ACGIH, ANSI, and NIOSH, especially when dealing with highly toxic byproducts. Maintaining clear documentation of hazard assessments, control implementations, and staff training is also essential to ensuring compliance and protecting workplace health.#
How to avoid fume pollution during laser cutting? | TIPS from Han’s Laser Smart Equipment Group
Implementing Effective Safety Measures
Effective mitigation of LGACs requires careful planning, which is informed by an understanding of material decomposition and exposure risks. In environments like operating rooms, research labs, and manufacturing facilities, where toxic gases, fine particles, and bioaerosols may be present, layered safety strategies are essential.
These include proper ventilation, process controls, adherence to regulations, and appropriate use of personal protective equipment. Together, these measures help reduce exposure and protect respiratory health in workplaces where lasers are used.
To explore comprehensive safety guidelines, visit:
Laser Safety: Guidelines and Best Practices for Laser Users and Operators
References and Further Readings
1. Mai, A. In Laser Generated Air Contaminants, ILSC 2023: Proceedings of the International Laser Safety Conference, 2023. https://pubs.aip.org/lia/ilsc/proceedings/ILSC2023/2023/T0301/3298032
2. Pierce, J. S.; Lacey, S. E.; Lippert, J. F.; Lopez, R.; Franke, J. E., Laser-Generated Air Contaminants from Medical Laser Applications: A State-of-the-Science Review of Exposure Characterization, Health Effects, and Control. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2011, 8, 447-466. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2011.585888
3. Alp, E.; Bijl, D.; Bleichrodt, R.; Hansson, B.; Voss, A., Surgical Smoke and Infection Control. Journal of Hospital infection 2006, 62, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2005.01.014
4. Lee, S. J.; Chung, P.-S.; Chung, S. Y.; Woo, S. H., Respiratory Protection for Laser Users. Medical Lasers; Engineering, Basic Research, and Clinical Application 2019, 8, 43-49. https://www.jkslms.or.kr/journal/view.html?doi=10.25289/ML.2019.8.2.43
5. Spörri, S.; Frenz, M.; Altermatt, H. J.; Bratschi, H. U.; Romano, V.; Forrer, M.; Dreher, E.; Weber, H. P., Effects of Various Laser Types and Beam Transmission Methods on Female Organ Tissue in the Pig: An in Vitro Study. Lasers in surgery and medicine 1994, 14, 269-277. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lsm.1900140309
6. Lippert1, J. F.; Lacey, S. E.; Lopez, R.; Franke, J.; Conroy, L.; Breskey, J.; Esmen, N.; Liu, L., A Pilot Study to Determine Medical Laser Generated Air Contaminant Emission Rates for a Simulated Surgical Procedure. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2014, 11, D69-D76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2014.888074
7. Fan, J. K.-M.; Chan, F. S.-Y.; Chu, K.-M., Surgical Smoke. Asian journal of surgery 2009, 32, 253-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60403-6
8. Ko, H. S.; Jeong, S. B.; Phyo, S.; Lee, J.; Jung, J. H., Emission of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants from Household Laser Processing Machine. Journal of Environmental Sciences 2021, 103, 148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.10.018
9. Bargman, H., Laser-Generated Airborne Contaminants. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2011, 4, 56-7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3050618/
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.