CASE STUDY # 159
1. Headline: Replacement of Hexavalent Chromium with
Trivalent Chromium in Decorative Chrome Plating Reduces
Sludge Generation
2. Background: See below.
3. Cleaner Production Application: Material substitution
4. Description of Cleaner Production Application: Cleaner
production is achieved by plating with trivalent rather
than hexavalent chromium. The tendency of trivalent
chromium to be oxidized to hexavalent chromium was
overcome by using a special membrane surrounding the
anodes. This also allows use of anodes made of lead. The
low deposition rates associated with trivalent chrome
plating were grossly increased by using specially
developed in-house organic additives to modify the
reactions and give performances superior to the
traditional process. This results in production which is
20-40% higher.
Case Study Summary
Process and Waste Information: Although the composition
of the plating line was not clear from the source
document, it is assumed that the sequence consists of
bright nickel plating with drag-out recovery, two clean
running rinses, chrome plate, two additional rinses, and a
final hot rinse. In the traditional process, hexavalent
concentrations are sometimes as high as 120 g/l.
Trivalent chromium replaces hexavalent chromium in the new
process and organic compounds are added. This results in
a decrease in sludge generation of over 95%, energy
consumption reduced by over 50%, lower current densities,
no chloride in the electrolyte, and a 98% reduction in
waste treatment costs. No reduction chemicals are needed
with the new process. Product quality was greatly
improved due to better coverage and more uniform plating.
Stage of Development: The technology has been fully
implemented and in operation since about 1985.
Level of Commercialization: It appears the company has
developed the procedure and sells it under the name
"Envirochrome-90". The membranes were developed for
mercury-free electrolysis of sodium chloride. Canning is
a supplier of machineries to the electroplating industry.
Material/Energy Balances and Substitutions:
Material Category Quantity Before* Quantity
After*
Waste generation: 100%
95%
Feedstock use: N/A
N/A
Water use: N/A
N/A
Energy use:
Consumption 100%
50%
Current densities 10-15Amp/dm2
3.2-8Amp/dm2 8-12V
*Exact quantities were not supplied.
5. Economics*
Investment Costs: Actual figures on investments are not
given, and these estimates may be low. A comparison is
made on the investment costs for a traditional plating
line and the new plating process for a plant producing 3
million nickel and chrome plated water fittings per year.
Traditional Technology
New Technology
Plating plant 175,000
135,000
Effluent plant 70,000
52,000
Operational & Maintenance: Only costs for water treatment
were given for the traditional and new technologies as
follows:
Traditional Technology
New Technology
Chrome reduction 6,459
0
Hydroxide precip. 1,605
120
Sludge disposal 2,905
130
Labor and materials 2,050
50
Total 13,064
300
*No costs were given for labor, maintenance of membranes,
or energy consumption for other operations. Membrane life
is assumed to be indefinite since no signs of wear
occurred after five years of operation.
Payback Time: It is not possible to calculate a payback
time due to lack of data but appears the technology is
relatively cheap compared to the traditional technology.
6. Advantages
Sludge production decreased by 95%, waste treatment costs
decreased by 98%, and power consumption decreased by over
50%. Electrical current densities are lower and the
electrolyte is less corrosive since no chloride is
present. The technology appears to be cheaper than the
traditional process and results in improved product
quality.
Benefits from improved public relations, reduced
liabilities, and changes in regulatory compliance were not
discussed.
7. Constraints: The brownish color of trivalent chrome may
be a problem for some people.
8. Contact: Contacts and Citation
Type of Source Material:
Document 1: UNEP report
Document 2: British government leaflet
Document 3: Plant leaflet
Citation:Document 1: Title not given.
B. Johnson, W. Canning Materials Ltd.
P.O.Box 288, Great Hampton Street
Birmingham B18 6AS, UK.
TEL 44-21-236-8621
FAX 44-21-236-0444
Document 2: Clean Technology.
EPT Office, Department of the Environment
Room B 357, Romney House
43 Marsham Street
London SW1P 3PY, UK
TEL: 4421-276-8318
Document 3: Envirochrome Process Operating Guide
W. Canning Materials Ltd.
P.O. Box 288
Great Hampton Street
Birmingham B18 6AS, UK
TEL: 44 21-236-8621
FAX: 44 21-236-0444.
9. Keywords: United Kingdom, UK, electroplating, material
substitution, ISIC 3471, chrome, trivalent chromium,
hexavalent chromium, rinsing, sludge, plating,
electrolysis.
10. Reviewer's Comments: This case study was originally
compiled by the UNEP IE Working Group on Metal Finishing.
It underwent a UNEP IE funded technical review in 1994 for
quality and completeness. It was edited for the ICPIC
diskette in July 1995.
(DOCNO: 10-01)