In reply to:

Efflux is a perfectly innocent noun that got converted into a verb without its consent. As a noun, it describes a process -- the process of effusion -- or the stuff that comes out itself -- the effluent.

"The process of effusion..." This made me think of a friend from years gone by who was accustomed to describing overly garrulous types as 'effusing' on various topics. I suppose that cell could 'effuse metals,' couldn't it, Father Steve?

I do agree with tsuwm that if people decide to describe the process of a cell's loss of metals as 'effluxing'--for want of a more convenient word that would as readily subsume the concept of a substance moving from one place to another--there's not much to be done to fight the movement, incorrect or not. Your explanation, Father Steve, makes very good sense, but when has good sense changed a bullheaded backward movement in the language? "A cell effluxes metal? Ah, yeah! I get it! The cell gets rid of the metal as an effluent! Cool! I, the ignorant, can get across that entire process and communicate it simply by saying, 'A cell effluxes metal,' and I'll be clearly understood, niceties aside," says the General Population.

It would be interesting to know how many misunderstandings have wormed their way into the language, from ghost words on up through stunning errors and even more specialized ones such as this one. If there were no such word as 'efflux'--if there were simply a simple synonym, such as 'flow,' I wonder whether we'd have the same error at all: "A cell flows metal." Sounds poetic...but the error probably wouldn't have otherwise occurred.