Pollution Prevention and Control Technologies for Plating
Operations
Section 4 - Chemical Solution Maintenance
4.7 MEMBRANE ELECTROLYSIS
4.7.6 Performance Experience
Only five membrane electrolysis applications were identified during
the Users Survey. These included two applications of in-house
units built by PS 275, two applications of Ionsep units and one
application of a Pentol CAPS system (manufactured in France).
Detailed data were provided for all systems except for the Pentol
unit. The user of that system, however, provided a short informative
description of their experience. A summary of the Users Survey
data are provided in Exhibit 4-33.
The following information and data summarize the performance experience
of the survey respondents.
- Shops using membrane electrolysis for chromic acid bath maintenance
gave the technology mixed ratings, even for the same manufacturer.
PS 006 and PS 052, both of which purchased Ionsep units, had general
satisfaction levels of 1 and 5, respectively (1= lowest and 5
= highest). The low satisfaction level from PS 006 may have been
influenced or otherwise related to the manufacturerís technical
support, which they also rated 1. That shop also provided the
following: ìTechnical support info very difficult to get
from vendor. Process not compatible with our bath, which we had
to learn on our own.î PS 052 gave a manufacturerís
support rating of 4. The owner of the Pentol unit was displeased
with its performance (PS 234). They wrote: Seemed limited to the
removal (of) trivalent chromium... other impurities such as Cu
and iron were largely unaffected.î
- The following is a breakdown of the reasons why shops purchased
this technology:
To meet or help meet effluent regulations: 0
To reduce plating chemical purchases: 1
To reduce the quantity of waste shipped off-site: 2
To reduce wastewater treatment costs: 0
To improve product quantity: 3
Other: 0
- The use of membrane electrolysis had a variable impact on
production quality and the rate of production. The following responses
were provided:
Product Quality Production Rate
Improved (PS 275) 1 1
No Change (PS 052) 1 1
Decreased (PS 006) 1 1
- Although PS 052 indicated in the survey form that product
quality and the production rate were not impacted, they also stated
that purifying their plating solutions ìreduces our reject
rates which eliminates the costly need to strip the part and replate.î
- None of the shops provided any estimates of savings from the
operation of membrane electrolysis units.
- Membrane electrolysis may be more applicable to simple chromic
acid bath chemistry (e.g., generic chromic acid/sulfuric acid
hard chromium bath) more so than baths with complex chemistry
(e.g., dual catalyst plating baths). This is evidenced by the
difficulties of PS 006, who operated their unit on a proprietary
fluoride bath (M&T CR 110), whereas PS 052, successfully operates
their unit on a generic hard chromium bath.
- Two of the survey respondents have purchased and used alternative
technologies for chromic acid bath maintenance. PS 006 previously
used the porous pot (an ion transfer technology) and PS 234 previously
used the porous pot and ion exchange. PS 006 indicated that the
porous pot was ìmoderately successfulî, whereas they
were unsatisfied with the membrane electrolysis unit. They indicated
that both technologies caused bath chemistry problems with their
proprietary plating solution. PS 234 has not been satisfied with
any of the chromic acid bath maintenance technologies that they
have tried and subsequently sold each of them. However, they indicated
that ion exchange provided the best results of the three technologies.
A complete discussion of their comments is presented in Section
4.6.8.
Next Section|Main Table of Contents|Section 4