Grantee Research Project Results

Final Report: A Cost-Competitive Functional Trivalent Chromium Plating Process To Replace Hexavalent Chromium Plating

EPA Contract Number: 68D99048
Title: A Cost-Competitive Functional Trivalent Chromium Plating Process To Replace Hexavalent Chromium Plating
Investigators: Renz, Robert P.
Small Business: Faraday Technology, Inc.
EPA Contact: Richards, April
Phase: I
Project Period: September 1, 1999 through March 1, 2000
Project Amount: $69,873
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase I (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: SBIR - Pollution Prevention , Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Description:

Can an appropriate CM-ECD waveform be "fine-tuned" to the proposed reduced-cost trivalent chromium plating chemistry?
Can our cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process achieve the technical parameters of 1) plating thickness, 2) plating rate, 3) hardness, and current efficiency equivalent to or greater than commercially available hexavalent chromium plating processes?

Is our cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process economically viable, as compared to currently available hexavalent chromium plating processes?

Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):

Overall Plating Results Table 1 summarizes the appearance, chromium thickness, plating rate, and plating efficiency results for each set of tests. For comparison, data from standard hexavalent chromium plating processes is included in the table. The optimum result from the Taguchi #3 set of experiments gives a plating efficiency and rate (29.7% and 135 µm/hour, respectively) better than typically seen for a hexavalent chromium plating process (24% and 80 µm/hour, respectively), and produces a shiny deposit.

Table 1: Overall Results from the 3 Taguchi Arrays of Plating Experiments

	CM-ECD Trivalent Chromium Plating Process						Hexalavent Chromium Plating Process
	Taguchi #1		Taguchi #2		Taguchi #3		Hexalavent Chromium Plating Process
Rod Conditions	Copper/Dull		Copper/Polished		Steel/Hardened & Ground		Steel/Hardened & Ground
	Range	Best	Range	Best	Range	Best
Appearance	Black to Shiny	Shiny	Black to Shiny	Shiny	Dull to Shiny	Shiny	Shiny
Chromium Thickness (µm)	3.1 - 28	19.9	0 - 19.8	15.5	2.5 - 35.0	20.3	-
Plating Efficiency (%)	4.6 - 41	29.1	0 - 28.9	22.7	3.7 - 51.3	29.7	~24
Plating Rate (µm/hr)	20.8 - 121.7	53	0 - 123.3	41.3	10 - 466.7	135	~80

Hardness Tests

Three rods were selected for hardness tests; the results are given in Table 2. They were Rod #34, Rod #35, and a rod plated in a hexavalent chromium plating solution labeled D1. The data shows that hardness values were comparable for all of the rods, indicating that the CM-ECD trivalent chromium plating process gave equivalent coating hardness to both a hexavalent chromium plating process and a DC trivalent chromium plating process.

Table 2: Hardness Tests

	Rod #34	Rod #35	Rod D1
HV/100	792	766	783
HV/100	750	783	766
HV/100	775	783	766
Average	772	777	772

Based on the above results, further rods were plated for hardness tests, but the CM-ECD frequency was reduced. Table 3 gives the hardness results for Rod #42 and Rod #43 which were plated at a higher frequency than Rod #35. Rod #44 was plated under DC conditions.

Table 3: Hardness Tests

	Rod #42	Rod #43	Rod 44
HV/100	870	830	830
HV/100	900	805	830
HV/100	850	780	816
Average	873	805	825

The data for the second group of rods (42, 43, and 44) show increased hardness values of the first group (Table 2), but again, comparable hardness values across the group. It is difficult draw any definite conclusions as to why the all of the hardnesses were higher in the second group since they were performed by the same person under the same conditions on the same equipment. One possible explanation would be that the second group were plated with a new trichromium sulfate bath.

Trivalent Chromium Chemistry Cost Comparison

The figures below reflect the replacement chemistry costs associated with replenishing the plating bath after plating the desired chromium amount. Our selected Cr2(SO4)3*7.5H2O (commercially available Cr⁺³ bath) at $5.33 per pound of chromium is on the order of the comparable CrO3 (commercially available Cr⁺⁶ bath) at $4.81 per pound of chromium. Therefore, chemistry cost is very similar to that associated with hexavalent chromium plating.

Conclusions:

The research objectives of this program were to demonstrate the reduced-cost, performance-based technical and economic feasibility of the proposed cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process to replace hexavalent chromium plating. The technical data (summarized in Table 4) indicate equivalent or superior: 1) plating rate, 2) hardness, and 3) current efficiency compared to current functional hexavalent chromium plating processes. In addition, the costs associated with our CM-ECD Cr⁺³ functional trivalent chromium plating process and conventional hexavalent chromium plating processes for functional applications are comparable. Table 4 provides our datat comparison.

Table 4: Data Comparison of a Current Cr⁺⁶ Process and Faraday's CM-ECD Cr⁺³ Process

	Current Cr⁺⁶ Process	Faraday Cr⁺³ Process
Plating Rate µm/hr	80	135
Hardness (Vickers)	777	772
Current Efficiency	24%	30%

Therefore, the results have demonstrated the feasibility of depositing chromium from a low-cost chromium sulfate bath, and addressed the program research objectives:

1. Can an appropriate CM-ECD waveform be "fine-tuned" to the proposed reduced-cost trivalent chromium plating chemistry?

The CM-ECD parameters of average current density and frequency were investigated as to their effect on plating from a low-cost trivalent chromium sulfate plating chemistry. In addition, the rotation rate of the rods and the temperature of the bath was also optimized. In general, a higher rotation rate was preferred to achieve a higher plating rate and efficiency. The chromium thickness increased with increasing current density and temperature. Better results were obtained at lower frequencies.

Therefore, the objective of tuning a CM-ECD waveform to the low-cost trivalent chromium plating chemistry was successfully achieved.

2. Can the proposed cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process achieve the technical parameters of 1) plating thickness, 2) plating rate, 3) hardness, and current efficiency equivalent to or greater than commercially available hexavalent chromium plating processes?

Although a wide range of values were obtained for 1) plating thickness, 2) plating rate, 3) hardness, and current efficiency by plating from a chromium sulfate (Cr⁺³) bath. In many cases, these values exceeded those obtained using commercially available hexavalent chromium plating processes.

In particular, the optimum result for chromium plating onto hardened and ground steel rods showed a plating efficiency and rate (29.7% and 135 µm/hour, respectively) for the trivalent chromium plating process, better than typically seen for a hexavalent chromium plating process (24% and 80 µm/hour, respectively), as well as producing a shiny deposit.

Additionally, Vickers hardness measurements showed comparable hardness values for trivalent and hexavalent chromium plating processes.

Therefore, the proposed cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process succeeded in achieving the technical parameters of 1) plating thickness, 2) plating rate, 3) hardness, and current efficiency equivalent to or greater than commercially available hexavalent chromium plating processes.

3. Is the proposed cost-competitive functional trivalent chromium plating process economically viable, as compared to currently available hexavalent chromium plating processes?

As reflected above, the chemistry cost for our selected Cr2(SO4)3*7.5H2O (commercially available Cr⁺³ bath) at $5.33 per pound of chromium is on the order of the CrO3 (commercially available Cr⁺⁶ bath) at $4.81 per pound of chromium. Therefore, chemistry cost is very similar to that associated with hexavalent chromium plating.

Also as reflected in our Phase I Final Report, costs associated with 1) waste treatment, 2) ventilation, and 3) power consumption are substantially lower for our CM-ECD Cr⁺³ functional chromium plating process as compared to conventional hexavalent Cr⁺⁶ commercial processes. NOTE: The data to support these cost comparisons were obtained from one of our proposed Phase II partner's actual plant calculations and are deemed to be confidential and proprietary.

Therefore, the CM-ECD Cr⁺³ process for functional applications is cost-competitive when compared to currently available hexavalent chromium plating processes.

Journal Articles:

No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 2 publications for this project

Supplemental Keywords:

Scientific Discipline, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Toxics, Waste, Water, Sustainable Industry/Business, National Recommended Water Quality, hexavalent chromium, Chemistry, Technology for Sustainable Environment, New/Innovative technologies, Engineering, 33/50, Engineering, Chemistry, & Physics, Economics & Decision Making, cost reduction, chromium & chromium compounds, pollution standards, Chromium, electroplating, pollution prevention, cost effectiveness, chromium electroplating baths

SBIR Phase II:

A Cost-Competitive Functional Trivalent Chromium Plating Process To Replace Hexavalent Chromium Plating | Final Report

Top of Page

The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.