On the notion of torsion-freeness in semigroup theory

The following seems to be the "official" notion of torsion-freeness in the context of semigroups:

TF1. A (multiplicatively written) semigroup $\mathfrak A$ is torsion-free if there do not exist $a,b \in \mathfrak A$ and $n \in \mathbb N^+$ such that $a \ne b$ and $a^n = b^n$.

On another hand, I recently ended up with the following alternative idea:

TF2. A semigroup $\mathfrak A$ is torsion-free if, given $a \in \mathfrak A$, $a^m = a^n$ for some $m,n \in \mathbb N^+$ with $m \ne n$ only if $a$ is idempotent.

Both of these generalize the usual notion of torsion-freeness for groups. Also, it is not difficult to check that TF1 implies TF2, but not viceversa. So, my questions are:

Q1. What about existing literature concerning torsion-free semigroups in the sense of the second definition? Q2. Could you point out some reasons why the former definition should be preferred to the latter?

For the record, this is somehow related to question 105851.

-
I do not think TF1 is ever used. "Torsion-free" means "no torsion". "Torsion" means elements of finite order. Element $x$ has finite order if it satisfies $x^m=x^n$ for $m\ne n$, $m,n\ge 0$. So "torsion-free" means TF2. – Mark Sapir Sep 3 '12 at 0:36
People in logarithmic geometry usually uses monoids and not only semi groups, but for them the second definition is the right one. The first is somehow referred to as "integral" making reference to integral domains. – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Sep 3 '12 at 0:40
I think Clifford and Preston use the first version in their book. For commutative it is equivalent to the Grothendieck group being torsion-free. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 3 '12 at 0:54
@Ben: where do they use it? If the semigroup is a monoid, one also assumes that $x\ne 1$ (as for groups). – Mark Sapir Sep 3 '12 at 1:08
For commutative monoids, TF1 is used in the case of cancelation only, as far as I know. Then TF1 means that the monoid embeds into torsion-free (in the usual sense) Abelian group. That is of course not a very reasonable terminology since it confuses two things, but it is indeed used sometimes. – Mark Sapir Sep 3 '12 at 1:15