CASE STUDY # 172
1. Headline: Membrane Electrolysis Results in almost
Complete Recovery of Nickel from Electroplating
Wastewaters
2. Background: See below.
3. Cleaner Production Principle: process modification
4. Description of Cleaner Production Application:
This technology involves in-process modifications using
membrane electrolysis to recover nickel and reduce rinse
water flow from electroplating processes.
Case Study Summary
Process and Waste Information: Water purification was
previously accomplished in a DND installation. For the new
process, membrane electrolysis was selected because the
high iron concentration in the solution can impair
electrolysis operation. The wastewater is sent to ion
exchangers where the stream of 4 m3/hr with 0.5 g/l of
nickel is concentrated to 10 m3/week with a concentration
of about 12 g/l. The wastestream is then passed to a
membrane electrolysis cell where 99.8% or 5000 kg/yr of
nickel is reclaimed through batch treatment. The nickel
content in the stream is reduced to less than 6 mg/l. The
membrane in the cell is composed of perfluorinated PTFE.
The cell operates at 7 V and with 900 A 4 days/week.
The new technology reduces the rinse water flow,
eliminates chlorine and sludge production, and recovers
nickel for sale or reuse. There is no effect on the final
product.
Stage of Development: The technology is fully
implemented.
Level of Commercialization: From the case study, it was
not clear whether the equipment was purchased or developed
in the plant itself. On further inquiry, it became
apparent that the equipment comes from Esmil, Diemen in
the Netherlands.
Material/Energy Balances and Substitutions: 5000 kg/yr of
nickel are reclaimed from the rinsewater.
6. Economics
Investment Costs: Investment costs for the electrolysis
system were reported as Dfl 715,000. Capital costs were
reported as Dfl 100,000. No further breakdown was
provided.
Operational & Maintenance Costs: Operating and
maintenance costs were reported to be Dfl 5,000 for
energy, Dfl 15,000 for labor, and Dfl 14,000 for
maintenance.
Payback Time: Nickel savings can be estimated to be about
Dfl 100,000 since 5000 kg/yr of nickel are recovered at a
rate of Dfl 20/kg. Savings on sludge hauling were not
specified, however, the amount of sludge not produced was
indicated as "tens of tons" and hauling rates are
estimated at Dfl 300 to 500.
6. Advantages: This process recovers nickel for sale or
reuse, reduces the quantity of wastewater requiring
further treatment, and eliminates chlorine and sludge
production. Benefits from improved public relations,
reduced liabilities, and changes in regulatory compliance
were not discussed.
7. Constraints
One problem which arose during implementation of the
technology was the plugging of anode compartments with
iron sludge from steel anodes. This was solved by using
activated titanium anodes with a layer or iridium oxide
which also increased efficiency.
At the end of the process, a basic mist was produced above
the anode compartments. This problem was eliminated by
placing mist filters above the anode compartments.
It was found that removal of nickel from the electrodes
took about 5 to 6 hours. Using cathode cylinders treated
with a contact oil before starting the process decreased
the time to about 2 hours.
The problem of the control of the voltage rectifier being
destroyed frequently was corrected by using oil cooling
instead of air cooling.
8. Contacts and Citations
Membrane electrolysis in practice.
J. Manders. Tijdschrift voor oppervlaktetechnieken en
corrosiebestrijding.
Vol. 34, No. 1, January 1990, p.14-16.
Level of Detail of the Source Material: Schematic
diagrams of plating and membrane electrolysis
processes, including additional efficiency and mass
balance data, are available in source document.
Industry/Program Contact and Address
Egidius Jansen
Witveldweg 14
5951 AV Belfeld
The Netherlands
TEL: 31-4705-1444
9. Keywords: the Netherlands, metal, electroplating, process
modification, ISIC 3471, nickel, electrolysis, ion
exchange, iron, PTFE, chlorine, sludge.
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: DOCUMENT NOT AVAILABLE *****10-19