This investigation characterizes five surgical stainless steel piercings and one niobium piercing that caused adverse reactions during use, culminating with the removal of the jewelry. Chemical composition shows that none of the materials are in accordance with ISO standards for surgical implant materials. Additionally, none of the stainless steel piercings passed the pitting-resistance criterion of ISO 5832-1, which implies that [%Cr + 3.3(%Mo)] > 26. Under microscopic examination, most of the jewelry revealed the intense presence of linear irregularities on the surface. The lack of resistance to pitting corrosion associated with the poor surface finishing of the stainless steel jewelry may induce localized corrosion, promoting the release of cytotoxic metallic ions (such as Cr, Ni, and Mo) in the local tissue, which can promote several types of adverse effects in the human body, including allergic reactions. The adverse reaction to the niobium jewelry could not be directly associated with the liberation of niobium ions or the residual presence of cytotoxic elements such as Co, Ni, Mo, and Cr. The poor surface finish of the niobium jewelry seems to be the only variable of the material that may promote adverse reactions.

Cracks, with no other damage, were observed in a niobium alloy (Nb-106) part when it was pulled from several months of protective storage for assembly into a rocket nozzle. SEM views showed the cracks to be intergranular, with contaminant particles on a large number of the grain facets. EDX analysis showed they consisted of niobium and fluorine. Plastic replicas, prepared by standard TEM techniques, were analyzed with selected-area electron diffraction, showing a pattern match for niobium tetrafluoride. Auger analyses showed electron spectra containing peaks representing carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, and chlorine. Investigation into the processing history of the part showed the tenacious oxide film formed by the affinity of niobium for oxygen - even when heat treated in a vacuum – was removed with a combination of strong acids: nitric, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, and lactic, resulting in the contaminants found on the surface. Thus, residues of the cleaning acid on the part had caused SCC during storage, with the tensile stresses necessary to generate SCC assumed to have been residual stresses from the heat treatment. Recommendation was made that more stringent cleaning procedures to remove any trace of the cleaning acids be used.