Substitution of PFOS for use in nondecorative hard chrome plating 

Pia Brunn Poulsen, Lars K. Gram and Allan Astrup Jensen 

FORCE Technology 

Anette Alsted Rasmussen and Christian Ravn 

IPU 

Per Møller 

DTU Mechanical Ingineering 

Carsten Ree Jørgensen 

a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S 

Kristian Løkkegaard 

Surfcoat A/S 

 

Environmental Project No. 1371 2011 

Miljøprojekt 
 

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency will, when opportunity 

offers, publish reports and contributions relating to environmental 

research and development projects financed via the Danish EPA. 

Please note that publication does not signify that the contents of the 

reports necessarily reflect the views of the Danish EPA. 

The reports are, however, published because the Danish EPA finds that 

the studies represent a valuable contribution to the debate on 

environmental policy in Denmark. 
Content 

PREFACE 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9

NON-PFOS MIST SUPPRESSANT CAN BE USED FOR HARD CHROME 

PLATING 9

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 9

THE INVESTIGATION 9

MAIN CONCLUSIONS 10

PROJECT RESULTS 10

Survey of the Danish and global use of PFOS in the chrome plating 

industry 10

Survey for alternative solutions to PFOS 11

Laboratory experiments 11

Large scale testing at a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S 12

SAMMENFATNING OG KONKLUSION 13

PFOS-FRI SKUMDÆMPER KAN ANVENDES TIL HÅRDFORKROMNING 13

BAGGRUND OG FORMÅL 13

UNDERSØGELSEN 13

HOVEDKONKLUSIONER 14

PROJEKTRESULTATER 14

Undersøgelse af det danske og globale forbrug af PFOS i 

hårdforkromningsindustrien 14

Undersøgelse af alternative løsninger til PFOS 15

Laboratorieforsøg 15

Forsøg i større skala hos a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S 16

1 INTRODUCTION 17

1.1 PURPOSE 17

1.2 BACKGROUND 17

1.2.1 The hard chrome plating process 17

1.2.2 PFOS for control of aerosol formation 18

1.2.3 PFOS - chemistry and properties 19

1.2.4 Regulations and other initiatives 20

1.2.5 Alternatives to PFOS 21

2 SURVEY OF THE GLOBAL USE OF PFOS IN THE CHROMEPLATING INDUSTRY 23

2.1 USE OF PFOS IN DENMARK 23

2.2 GLOBAL USE OF PFOS 24

2.2.1 Denmark 27

2.2.2 Nordic countries 27

2.2.3 Germany 28

2.2.4 Belgium 29

2.2.5 Czech Republic 29

2.2.6 Italy 29

2.2.7 Romania 29

2.2.8 Slovenia 29

2.2.9 UK 29

3
2.2.10 France 30

2.2.11 The Netherlands 30

2.2.12 EU 30

2.2.13 Switzerland 31

2.2.14 Canada 31

2.2.15 USA 32

2.2.16 China 32

2.2.17 Japan 32

2.2.18 Australia 33

2.2.19 Latin America 34

2.2.20 Africa 34

3 SURVEY OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO PFOS FOR 

CHROME PLATING 35

3.1 CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 35

3.1.1 Information from organisations and institutions 35

3.1.2 Contact to producers and suppliers/Internet search 36

3.2 PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES (IPU) 40

4 ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 41

4.1 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 41

4.2 USABILITY – TECHNICAL 42

4.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT 43

4.3.1 PFOS 43

4.3.2 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

(CAS No. 27619-97-2) 47

4.3.3 PFBS 48

4.3.4 F-53 49

4.3.5 F-53B 49

4.3.6 Non-fluoro alternative 49

4.3.7 Comparison 49

4.3.8 Conclusion 50

5 TESTING OF ALTERNATIVES TO PFOS (LABORATORY 

SCALE) (IPU) 53

5.1 TESTING IN THE LABORATORY (IPU) 53

5.1.1 Experimental procedure 53

5.1.2 Results 55

5.1.3 Discussion 56

6 TESTING IN LARGE SCALE 59

6.1 PLANNING OF LARGE SCALE TESTING 59

6.1.1 Use of a reference measurement without mist suppressant 59

6.1.2 Size of chrome bath 60

6.1.3 Electrical charge of the chrome bath 60

6.1.4 Identical measurements of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 60

6.1.5 Dosage of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 to the chrome bath 60

6.1.6 Duration and number of measurements 61

6.1.7 Measurement of total chromium emissions 61

6.1.8 Technical issues regarding the measurements 62

6.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 62

6.3 RESULTS 64

6.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 66 

4
7 ASSESSMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE TO PFOS FOR HARD 

CHROME PLATING 69

7.1 EFFECTIVENESS 69

7.2 ECONOMY 69

7.3 ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH 70

7.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE USABILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE 

SOLUTION WITHIN OTHER AREAS 71

7.5 CONCLUSION 71

8 REFERENCES 73

Appendix A: Test report. Large scale testing of PFOS and Fumetrol 21 at 

a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. 

5
6
Preface 

This project was initiated by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency as 

part of the programme “Miljøeffektiv Teknologi – Substitution af 

problematiske kemikalier” (Environmentally effective technology – 

Substitution of problematic chemicals”. 

The project was carried out in the period August 2009 to February 2011. 

Sidsel Dyekjær and Mikkel Aaman Sørensen from the Danish EPA supervised 

the project. 

The purpose of this project was to find an alternative to PFOS use as a mist 

suppressant in non-decorative hard chrome plating, a PFOS use which 

presently is exempted from the EU ban of use of PFOS, because of lack of 

alternatives. 

Various chemical and physical alternatives were tested in laboratory scale. A 

non-PFOS alternative as mist suppressant chemical was tested in a larger scale 

at a hard chrome plating company in Denmark. 

7
8
Summary and conclusions 

Non-PFOS mist suppressant can be used for hard chrome plating 

In this project “Substitution of PFOS for use in non-decorative hard chrome 

plating”, experiments on both laboratory scale and larger industrial scale have 

shown that it is possible to substitute PFOS as mist suppressant in the nondecorative hard chrome plating process. 

Background and purpose 

Hard chrome plating is a surface treatment process where a layer of 

chromium is electrochemically deposited on the surface of metals. The 

electrochemical process produces a significant amount of gases to be released 

from the process tank. These gases rise to the surface as bubbles. Most 

bobbles burst at the surface and when they burst, they form aerosols which 

are released to the atmosphere. The aerosols consist of process liquid 

containing chromic acid and thus may expose the environment if no mist 

suppressant agent is used. 

Some years ago it was discovered that addition of polyfluorinated surfactants 

(PFOS and derivatives) to the chromic acid bath would lower the surface 

tension by forming a thin foamy layer on the surface of the chrome bath. That 

mist suppressant layer dramatically reduced the formation of chromium-VIaerosols (Cr6+), which are well-known as carcinogenic, allergenic and 

dangerous for the environment. Thus, introduction of PFOS as mist 

suppressant helped solving huge occupational safety problems as well as 

environmental problems in the hard chrome plating industry. 

PFOS and similar compounds are, however, an environmental and health 

problem as these substances are being biomagnified through the food chain. 

PFOS has many adverse effects, among others; it is an endocrine disrupting 

substance that affects the human fertility. 

The purpose of this project was to examine the possibilities of replacing the 

use of PFOS as mist suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

In addition, this project surveyed the use of PFOS and alternatives within the 

non-decorative hard chrome plating industry in Denmark as well as 

worldwide. 

The investigation 

The investigation was managed by FORCE Technology in cooperation with 

IPU, DTU Mechanical Engineering, and the surface treatment company a.h. 

nichro Haardchrom A/S that was assisted by the development company 

SurfCoat A/S. 

9
The laboratory experiments were carried out by IPU and the large scale 

testing was carried out at a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. FORCE Technology 

was responsible for the chromium emission measurement during the large 

scale testing. 

Main conclusions 

The main conclusions of the project are: 

 A non-PFOS mist suppressant chemical alternative was found (at 

large scale testing) to be useful as an alternative to PFOS. The 

effectiveness, the durability, and the price level were similar to that of 

PFOS. The non-PFOS alternative is an environmental improvement 

as it is less persistent, less bioaccumulative, and less toxic than PFOS. 

 A non-fluorinated mist suppressant chemical alternative was found 

and might be a promising substitute for PFOS. However, as 

continuously addition of the mist suppressant is needed, the usefulness 

of the alternative seems to be limited for automated hard chrome 

processes and must be assessed in each case. 

 A physical alternative – in the form of PTFE coated balls – does not 

seem to lower the chromium emissions from the chrome bath. Quite 

the contrary, the chromium emissions seem to increase compared to 

using no mist suppressant at all. 

 A physical alternative – in the form of a mesh or blanket solution –

could be suitable for large scale series plating of uniform products. 

However, this kind of alternative was not investigated further in this 

project. 

 Finally, the laboratory results of this project showed that the Cr6+

emission can be reduced radically by avoiding air convection. This 

indicates that large scale tests of a physical method that prevents air 

convection could turn out to be an alternative to PFOS. Such method 

would be a suitable alternative to PFOS in mass production systems. 

However, in plating system for frequently varying productions, it will 

be more difficult to establish a closed system because of the flexibility 

required to such systems. However, this alternative solution was not 

investigated further in this project, but would be a very interesting 

solution to investigate further. 

Project results 

Survey of the Danish and global use of PFOS in the chrome plating industry 

A survey of the Danish use of PFOS in the chrome plating industry showed 

that the annually use of PFOS in the Danish chrome plating industry is 

between 10 to 28 kg (calculated as pure PFOS). This number was found by 

contact to the Danish hard chrome platers and suppliers of PFOS as mist 

suppressants to the Danish market. 

The global use of PFOS in the chrome plating industry was estimated to be 

around 32 to 40.7 tons of PFOS (calculated as pure PFOS). This number 

was derived by contact to various global suppliers of PFOS as well as an 

Internet search after various sources to this kind of information. Most 

literature does not distinguish between the amount of PFOS used for non10
decorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)) and for other purposes 

within metal plating. Therefore, in most cases, the estimated amounts cover 

the entire metal plating industry and not only non-decorative hard chrome 

plating. Furthermore, most literature data is more than five years old and 

therefore it does not account for the fact that PFOS in the EU was banned for 

other purposes than non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

Survey for alternative solutions to PFOS 

A survey for alternative chemical and physical mist suppressants was carried 

out. This survey showed that the following alternatives were most promising 

for use in plating system for frequently varying productions, as in the case of 

the participating plating company a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S: 

 Physical alternatives 

o Use of PTFE coated balls 

 Chemical alternatives 

o The fluorinated alternative Fumetrol®

 21 from Atotech, which 

is based on 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. 

o The fluor-free alternative TIB Suract CR-H from TIB 

Chemicals (but no information about the chemical substance, 

as this is confidential). 

Laboratory experiments 

The above mentioned two chemical alternatives and the physical alternative 

(PTFE coated balls) were tested on laboratory scale before choosing the most 

promising alternative for larger scale testing at a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. 

The different alternatives as well as PFOS and a reference without mist 

suppressant were tested and the chromium-(VI) emissions were measured. 

The experiments were carried out both without exhaust (no airflow in the 

experimental container) and with simulated exhausting. 

The results showed that: 

 The commercial PFOS product results in very effective reduction of 

the Cr6+ emission. 

 Addition of TIB Suract results in reduction of the Cr6+ emission. In 

the experiment with continuous addition of TIB Suract, the additions 

followed the suggestions of the datasheet of the product, despite that 

the applied additions were not sufficient to prevent mist formation. 

This alternative was therefore not working as well as Fumetrol®

 21. 

 Addition of Fumetrol®

 21 results in reduction of the Cr6+ emission. In 

the case of simulated exhausting, Fumetrol®

 21 reduces the Cr6+

emission more than the additions of TIB Suract and PTFE balls. 

 Addition of PTFE balls results in increased Cr6+ emission, also when 

used in combination with addition of Fumetrol®

 21. 

 The results evidently show that the Cr6+ emission in a system with 

simulated exhausting is significantly higher than in a system with very 

low convection of air. This shows that the Cr6+ emission can be 

reduced radically by avoiding air convection. 

Based on these results, it was decided to test Fumetrol®

 21 in a larger scale at 

a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. Even though the results without exhaust were 

11
very promising, this alternative solution was not found suitable for the varying 

production at a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. 

Large scale testing at a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S 

Large scale testing of the effect of Fumetrol®

 21 (Atotech) as an alternative to 

PFOS was carried out at the hard chrome plating plant a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom A/S in Hvidovre, Denmark. 

The primary purpose of the test was to see if the Fumetrol®

 21 could be used 

as an alternative to PFOS as mist suppressing agent with similar abilities to 

suppress chromium-(VI) emissions from the chrome bath. 14 days of testing 

was therefore carried out both with the use of PFOS and with the use of 

Fumetrol®

 21 as mist suppressant. The conditions in the chrome bath and the 

subjects to be chromated were the same in both cases. Five measurements 

were carried out in both experiments, on day 1, day 3, day 7, day 10, and day 

14 of the make-up of the chrome bath (i.e. addition of mist suppressing 

agent). 

The results showed that the alternative compound 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) in a large scale test: 

 works as effective as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 seems to have the same durability as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 has the same price level as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 can be substituted right away, when PFOS is burnt out in the chrome 

bath, without the need of changing the entire chrome bath chemicals, 

and 

 is an environmental improvement as it is less persistent, less 

bioaccumulative, and less toxic than PFOS. 

This project has therefore shown that it is possible to use a non-PFOS mist 

suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

12
Sammenfatning og konklusion 

PFOS-fri skumdæmper kan anvendes til hårdforkromning 

I dette projekt “Substitution af PFOS til brug i ikke-dekorativ 

hårdforkromning” har forsøg både i laboratorium i lille skala og på en 

virksomhed i lidt større skala vist, at det er muligt at erstatte PFOS som 

skumdæmper i den ikke-dekorative hårdforkromningsproces. 

Baggrund og formål 

Hårdforkromning er en overfladebehandling, hvor et lag af chrom lægges 

elektrokemisk på overfladen af metaller. Den elektrokemiske proces udvikler 

en betydelig mængde af gasser, som bliver frigjort fra procesbadet. Disse 

gasser stiger til overfladen som bobler. De fleste bobler brister ved overfladen, 

og når de brister, danner de aerosoler, som frigøres til atmosfæren. 

Aerosolerne består af procesvæske, der indeholder chromsyre, og de kan 

således udsætte miljøet for fare, hvis der ikke bruges nogen skumdæmper. 

For nogle år siden blev det opdaget, at tilsætning af polyfluorerede midler, der 

påvirker overfladespændingen (PFOS og derivater), til chromsyrebadet, 

sænker overfladespændingen ved at danne et tyndt skumlag på overfladen af 

chrombadet. Dette skumlag formindskede dramatisk dannelsen af chrom-VIaerosoler (Cr6+), som er kendte for at være kræft- og allergifremkaldende samt 

farlige for miljøet. Således var introduktionen af PFOS som skumdæmper 

med til at løse store arbejdsmiljømæssige og miljømæssige problemer i 

hårdforkromningsindustrien. 

PFOS og lignende forbindelser er dog et miljø- og sundhedsmæssigt problem, 

da disse stoffer bliver opkoncentreret gennem fødekæden. PFOS har blandt 

andet mange uønskede bivirkninger. Det er et hormonforstyrrende stof, som 

påvirker den menneskelige frugtbarhed. 

Formålet med dette projekt var at undersøge mulighederne for at erstatte 

brugen af PFOS som skumdæmper ved ikke-dekorativ hårdforkromning. 

Endvidere har dette projekt kortlagt brugen af PFOS og alternativer inden for 

den ikke-dekorative hårdforkromningsindustri i Danmark så vel som i hele 

verden. 

Undersøgelsen 

Undersøgelsen blev ledet af FORCE Technology i samarbejde med IPU, 

DTU Mekanik og overfladebehandlingsfirmaet a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S, 

som blev assisteret af udviklingsfirmaet SurfCoat A/S. 

Laboratorieforsøgene blev udført af IPU, og forsøgene i større skala blev 

udført hos a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. FORCE Technology var ansvarlig 

for chromemissionsmålingen under testningen i større skala. 

13
Hovedkonklusioner 

Projektets hovedkonklusioner er: 

 Et kemisk alternativ til en PFOS-fri skumdæmper viste sig (ved forsøg 

i større skala) at være et brugbart alternativ til PFOS. Effektiviteten, 

holdbarheden og prisniveauet var det samme som for PFOS. Det 

PFOS-frie alternativ er en miljømæssig forbedring, da det er mindre 

persistent, mindre bioakkumulerende og mindre giftig sammenlignet 

med PFOS. 

 Et kemisk alternativ til en ikke-fluoreret skumdæmper blev 

identificeret og kunne være en lovende erstatning for PFOS. Da 

kontinuerlig tilsætning af skumdæmperen er nødvendig, ser nytten af 

alternativet dog ud til at være begrænset for automatiserede 

hårdforkromningsprocesser, og der er behov for en særskilt vurdering i 

hvert enkelt tilfælde. 

 Et fysisk alternativ – i form af PTFE-belagte bolde – ser ikke ud til at 

dæmpe chromemissionerne fra chrombadet. Snarere tværtimod ser 

chromemissionerne ud til at øges, sammenlignet med hvis der slet ikke 

bruges skumdæmper. 

 Et fysisk alternativ – i form af en net- eller tæppeløsning – kunne være 

egnet til serieforkromning af ensartede produkter i større målestok. 

Dette alternativ blev dog ikke undersøgt nærmere i dette projekt. 

 Endelig viste laboratorieresultaterne i dette projekt, at Cr6+-emissionen 

kan reduceres radikalt ved at undgå luftbevægelse (simuleret 

udsugning). Dette indikerer, at en fysisk metode, der forhindrer 

luftbevægelse, kunne vise sig at være et alternativ til PFOS. Sådan en 

metode ville være et egnet alternativ til PFOS i 

masseproduktionssystemer. Men i overfladebehandlingssystemer med 

ofte varierende produktioner vil det være sværere at etablere et lukket 

system på grund af fleksibiliteten, der kræves af sådanne systemer. 

Denne alternative løsning blev dog ikke undersøgt yderligere i dette 

projekt, men det ville være en meget interessant løsning at undersøge 

yderligere. 

Projektresultater 

Undersøgelse af det danske og globale forbrug af PFOS i 

hårdforkromningsindustrien 

En undersøgelse af det danske forbrug af PFOS i hårdforkromningsindustrien 

viste, at det årlige forbrug af PFOS i den danske forkromningsindustri er 

mellem 10 til 28 kg (beregnet som ren PFOS). Dette tal blev fundet ved at 

kontakte de danske hårdforkromere og leverandører af PFOS som 

skumdæmpere til det danske marked. 

Det globale forbrug af PFOS i hårdforkromningsindustrien blev beregnet til at 

være ca. 32 til 40,7 tons PFOS (beregnet som ren PFOS). Dette tal stammer 

fra kontakt til forskellige globale leverandører af PFOS samt en 

internetsøgning efter forskellige kilder til denne slags oplysninger. Det meste 

af litteraturen skelner ikke mellem mængden af PFOS, der bruges til ikkedekorativ hårdforkromning (chrom-(VI)) og til andre formål inden for 

14
metaloverfladebehandling. Derfor dækker de estimerede mængder i de fleste 

tilfælde hele metaloverfladebehandlingsindustrien og ikke kun ikke-dekorativ 

hårdforkromning. Desuden er de fleste litteraturdata mere end fem år gamle, 

og dermed tages der ikke højde for, at PFOS blev forbudt i EU til andre 

formål end ikke-dekorativ hårdforkromning. 

Undersøgelse af alternative løsninger til PFOS 

En undersøgelse af alternative kemiske og fysiske skumdæmpere blev 

gennemført. Denne undersøgelse viste, at følgende alternativer var de mest 

lovende til brug i overfladebehandlingssystemer med ofte varierende 

produktioner, som i tilfældet med det deltagende overfladebehandlingsfirma 

a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S: 

 Fysiske alternativer 

o Brug af PTFE-belagte bolde 

 Kemiske alternativer 

o Det fluorerede alternative Fumetrol®

 21 fra Atotech, som er 

baseret på 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluoroctan sulfonsyre. 

o Det fluor-fri alternativ TIB Suract CR-H fra TIB Chemicals 

(men der var ingen oplysninger om det kemiske indholdsstof, 

da det er fortroligt). 

Laboratorieforsøg 

De to ovennævnte kemiske alternativer og det fysiske alternativ (PTFEbelagte bolde) blev testet på et laboratorium før valget af det mest lovende 

alternativ til testning i større skala hos a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. De 

forskellige alternativer samt PFOS og en reference uden skumdæmper blev 

testet, og chrom-(VI)-emissionerne blev målt. Eksperimenterne blev udført 

både uden udsugning (intet luftflow i forsøgsbeholderen) og med simuleret 

udsugning. 

Resultaterne viste, at: 

 Det kommercielle PFOS-produkt resulterer i en meget effektiv 

reduktion af Cr6+-emissionen. 

 Tilsætning af TIB Suract resulterer i en reduktion af the Cr6+-

emissionen. I eksperimentet med kontinuerlig tilsætning af TIB Siract 

(hvor der blev tilsat ifølge forskrifterne på det tekniske datablad), var 

det dog ikke tilstrækkelige til at forhinde en Cr6+-emission. Dette 

produkt virkede altså ikke så godt som Fumetrol®

 21. 

 Tilsætning af Fumetrol®

 21 resulterer i en reduktion af Cr6+-

emissionen. I tilfældet med simuleret udsugning reducerer Fumetrol®

21 Cr6+-emissionen mere end tilsætningerne af TIB Suract og PTBEbolde. 

 Tilsætning af PTFE-bolde resulterer i øget Cr6+-emission, også når de 

bruges i en kombination med tilsætning af Fumetrol®

 21. 

 Resultaterne viser tydeligt, at Cr6+-emissionen i et system med 

simuleret udsugning er markant højere end i et system med meget lille 

luftbevægelse. Dette viser, at Cr6+-emissionen kan reduceres radikalt 

ved at undgå luftbevægelse (simuleret udsugning). 

15
Baseret på disse resultater blev det besluttet at teste Fumetrol®

 21 i større 

målestok på a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. Selvom resultaterne uden 

udsugning var meget lovende, blev denne alternative løsning ikke fundet egnet 

for den vekslende produktion, der foregår hos a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S. 

Forsøg i større skala hos a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S 

Forsøg i større skala af effekten af Fumetrol®

 21 (Atotech) som et alternativ til 

PFOS blev udført hos hårdforkromningsvirksomheden a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom A/S i Hvidovre, Danmark. 

Det primære formål med forsøget var at se, om Fumetrol®

 21 kunne anvendes 

som et alternativ til PFOS som skumdæmpningsmiddel med samme 

egenskaber til at dæmpe chrom-(VI)-emissioner fra chrombadet. Et forsøg 

over 14 dage blev derfor udført både med brug af PFOS og med brug af 

Fumetrol®

 21 som skumdæmper. Forholdene i chrombadet og de genstande, 

der skulle forkromes, var de samme i begge tilfælde. Fem målinger blev udført 

i begge eksperimenter, på dag 1, dag 3, dag 7, dag 10 og dag 14 efter at 

chrombadet blev blandet (dvs. tilsætning af skumdæmpningsmiddel). 

Resultaterne viste, at den alternative forbindelse 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluor octan 

sulfonsyre (Fumetrol®

 21) i et forsøg i større skala: 

 arbejder lige så effektivt som PFOS som skumdæmpningsmiddel, 

 ser ud til at have samme holdbarhed som PFOS som 

skumdæmpningsmiddel, 

 har samme prisniveau som PFOS som skumdæmpningsmiddel, 

 kan erstattes straks, når PFOS er ”brændt af” i chrombadet, uden at 

det er nødvendigt at skifte alle kemikalierne i chrombadet, og 

 er en miljømæssig forbedring, da det er mindre persistent, mindre 

bioakkumulerende og mindre giftig sammenlignet med PFOS. 

Dette projekt har derfor vist, at det er muligt at bruge en PFOS-fri 

skumdæmper til ikke-dekorativ hårdforkromning. 

16
1 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose 

The purpose of this project was to examine the possibilities of replacing the 

use of PFOS as mist suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating 

either by chemical substitution or technology shift or a combination. 

In addition, this project surveyed the use of PFOS and alternatives within the 

non-decorative hard chrome plating industry in Denmark, as well as 

worldwide. 

If a sufficient alternative for mist suppression in hard chrome plating was 

identified, this alternative could also be relevant for other metal plating 

processes. 

1.2 Background 

1.2.1 The hard chrome plating process 

Hard chrome plating is a surface treatment process where a layer of 

chromium is electrochemically deposited on the surface of metals. Today it is 

mainly used where hard-wearing, abrasion-resistant, and corrosion-resistant 

surfaces are required, for example, for hydraulic systems, axles in bearing 

constructions, printing bowls, toothed wheels, equipment for the foodstuff 

industry, and surgical instruments. 

Electrochemical deposition of hard chrome is characterised as having a very 

low current efficiency because at the cathode only approximately 20% of the 

applied current is used for the deposition of chromium, whereas the rest of the 

current is used for hydrogen development. At the anode, the main chemical 

reaction results in oxygen development. 

Thus, the electrochemical process produces a significant amount of gases to 

be released from the process tank. These gases rise to the surface as bubbles. 

Most bobbles burst at the surface. When they burst they form aerosols which 

are released to the atmosphere. The aerosols consist of process liquid 

containing chromic acid and thus may expose the environment if no mist 

suppressant agent is used (Pilat and Pegnam, 2006; Koropchak and 

Rowchowhury, 1990). 

Often a layer of polypropylene balls on the surface of the chromic acid bath is 

used to reduce the heat loss. 

17
Figure 1-1-1: An industrial hard chrome plating system. The sample to be deposited with 

chromium is submerged in the electrolyte (in the middle of the photo). The surface of 

the electrolyte is covered with plastic balls, acting as a flexible isolation layer and 

preventing evaporation of water from the heated electrolyte. 

1.2.2 PFOS for control of aerosol formation 

Some years ago, it was discovered that addition of polyfluorinated surfactants 

(PFOS and derivatives) to the chromic acid bath would lower the surface 

tension by forming a thin foamy layer on the surface of the chrome bath. That 

mist suppressant layer dramatically reduced the formation of chromium-(VI)-

aerosols (Cr6+), which are well-known as carcinogenic, allergenic, and 

dangerous for the environment. Thus, introduction of PFOS as mist 

suppressant helped solving huge occupational safety problems as well as 

environmental problems in the hard chrome plating industry. 

The most common fluorinated surfactant used in the business today is 

tetraethyl ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate (CAS no. 56773-42-3; 

Fluortensid-248), a derivative of PFOS. 

The fluorinated mist suppressant is added only when necessary, i.e. when an 

increased formation of aerosols in the chromic acid bath is foreseen. Some 

methods (mentioned by suppliers) exist today for measuring, when additional 

mist suppressant is needed, but these methods are not used in most plants. It 

is merely the experience of the workers and their assessment that determines 

when additionally mist suppressant is needed. This means that larger amounts 

of PFOS than strongly needed may be used, even though the high price 

probably prevents excessive use of PFOS. 

When the chrome bath is contaminated and cannot be used anymore, the 

liquid has to be disposed of as chemical waste. In Denmark, it is sent to a 

chemical waste plant where the chromium is precipitated. The filter cake is 

incinerated and the slag from the incineration is disposed on a landfill. The 

liquid is sent to a wastewater treatment plant after removal of chromium and 

other metals1

. The residues of PFOS and degradation products will follow the 

waste water and end up in sewage sludge. 

 

1 Personal communication with customer service at Kommunekemi a/s February 

2011.

18
A great part of PFOS used in this industry will probably end up in the nature. 

That is confirmed by the high levels of PFOS recently found in agricultural 

soils treated with sewage sludge in the US and in Germany (Renner, 2009). 

On the other hand, the German national metal plating association (ZVO) 

states that in the case of Germany only 20% of the applied is lost.2

 The US 

EPA has recently discovered that the metal plating industry is a major 

contributor to the pollution of perfluorinated chemicals into sewage water in 

the US, and this is especially alarming as the chemicals pass undegraded 

through sewage treatment plants into lakes and streams. There are reports of 

very high concentrations of PFCs being flushed into the sewers at 

concentrations as high as 54,000 parts per trillion. The usual concentration of 

PFC in the water going into the metal shops is 2.5 parts per trillion. The US 

EPA will test at more metal platers, and the findings could lead to new rules 

restricting PFCs in metal shops in the US (Chicago Tribune, 2010). 

1.2.3 PFOS - chemistry and properties 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) is the best known perfluorinated 

compound. PFOS has a linear perfluoroalkyl carbon chain of 8 and a sulfonic 

acid functional group. 

S

OH

O

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

PFOS 

The production and sale of PFOS has dropped drastically since the year 2000 

where the multinational company 3M, that was the main producer of the 

substance, voluntarily decided to stop the production and sale of PFOS and 

related compounds. Since then Chinese producers have taken over the 

production of PFOS, but not on the same scale. The annual production of 

PFOS in China at 15 enterprises is presently about 200 tons (Mei Shengfang, 

2010). 

PFCs – polyfluorinated3

 substances – are a large group of chemical substances 

with related properties. Most PFCs contain an alkyl chain typically between 4 

and 12 carbon atoms where all or most of the hydrogen atoms have been 

replaced by fluorine. The strong fluorine-carbon bonds make the chain very 

stable and non-degradable in the environment. The substances also contain a 

more reactive functional group, which may be an alcohol, a carboxylic acid, a 

sulfonic acid, a phosphoric acid, or their derivatives. 

According to OECD, about one thousand of polyfluorinated compounds 

(PFCs) are in use today. Any of these substances is surface active substances 

with an extreme low surface tension, and they often repel water, grease, and 

dirt. These properties are useful for various applications, such as dirt 

repellents in e.g. clothes and carpets, grease-proof paper in food packaging, in 

fire fighting foams, and many other industrial purposes such as in the 

 

2

 Personal information from Christoph Matheis, Zentralverbandes 

Oberflächentechnik e. V. (ZVO), D-40724 Hilden; March 6, 2009.

3 ”Poly” means that many of the hydrogen atoms in the alkyl chain have been replaced 

with fluorine; ”per” means that all hydrogen in the alkyl chain have been replaced 

with fluorine. 

19
semiconductor industry, in the photo industry, and as mist suppressants in the 

metal plating industry. 

In recent years, PFOS and other polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) have 

become a global environmental problem. These substances have been 

determined widespread in surface water, sediment, sludge, soil, 

outdoor/indoor air/dust, soils, animals, and humans, and have been found 

even in remote polar areas such as Greenland (Giesy and Kannan 2002; Bossi 

et al., 2005ab; Jensen et al., 2006). 

 

The polyfluorinated substances are being biomagnified through the food 

chain. As opposed to the most common persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 

polyfluorinated compounds are not concentrated significantly in fatty tissue. 

On contrary, they are associated to proteins in blood and internal organs, such 

as spleen, lever, and kidney. Polar bears in top of the arctic food chain have 

especially high concentrations of PFOS in the blood and liver. 

PFOS has many adverse effects, among others; it is an endocrine disrupting 

substance that affects the human fertility. Recent studies show a correlation 

between the amount of PFOS in human blood and the time it takes for 

women to get pregnant and a reduction in men’s semen quality (Fei et al., 

2009; Joensen et al., 2009). 

1.2.4 Regulations and other initiatives 

Already in 2004, PFOS-related compounds were added to the “List of 

Undesirable Substances” by the Danish EPA. 

The European Parliament and Council has regulated PFOS substances in 

Directive 2006/122/EC of December 12, 2006 on “restrictions on the 

marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations 

(perfluorooctane sulfonates)”. According to this directive, PFOS compounds 

may no longer be marketed or used as a substance or as part of preparations 

in concentrations equal to or above 0.005 % (w/w), and may no longer be 

used in semi-manufactured products or articles in a concentration equal to or 

above 0.1 % (became effective from June 27, 2008). Some exceptions on the 

ban of PFOS in the EU exist, among others the use as mist suppressants for 

non-decorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)). This directive was 

automatically incorporated in the REACH Regulation annex XVII by 

1.6.2009. 

In May 2009, PFOS was listed as a persistent organic pollutant in the 

Stockholm Convention. Hard metal plating and decorative plating became 

specific use exemptions. (SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/3, 2009). 

In December 2009, the US EPA published their action plan on long-chained 

perfluorinated chemicals4

. The US EPA intends to consider initiating 

rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to manage long-chain PFCs. If the US 

EPA can obtain certain findings with respect to these chemicals, TSCA 

 

4

 US EPA ”Long-chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) Action Plan Summary. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/pfcs.html. Long-chained 

PFCs are defined in the action plan and can in short be explained as PFAS 

(perfluoroalkyl sulfonates) with a chain length of 6 or higher and as PFAC 

(perfluoroalkyl carboxylates) with a chain length of 8 or higher. 

20
section 6 provides authority for the US EPA to ban or restrict the 

manufacture (including import), processing, and use of these chemicals. 

In September 2010, the US NASF organisation (National Association for 

Surface Finishing) has supported a 3-year phase out of PFOS-based mist 

suppressants for chromium plating5

. 

1.2.5 Alternatives to PFOS 

Previously, PFOS was used for both decorative chrome plating and hard 

chrome plating processes but new technology applying chromium-(III) 

instead of chromium-(VI) has made PFOS use in decorative chrome plating 

outdated and unnecessary. For hard chrome plating, however, the process 

with chromium-(III) does not function. Instead larger closed tanks, or 

increased ventilation combined with an extraction of chromium-(VI), are 

suggested as alternative solutions for the applications where a use of 

chromium-(III) is not possible yet (TNO, 2006). 

Hence, it is still permitted to use PFOS and its derivates within the 

electroplating industry. The reason for the ongoing use of PFOS is that no 

satisfactory alternatives have been found so far. 

The chromic acid bath that is used for hard chrome plating is extremely 

reactive and oxidizing, and PFOS is used because it is very resistant to that 

harsh environment and has an extremely low surface tension. It is very 

difficult to find another chemical with such useful properties. However, there 

are PFOS-free fluorinated alternatives on the market based on e.g. 

fluorotelomers. 

Another way to make PFOS obsolete is to introduce alternative technology 

which is resistant to the extremely oxidizing chromium bath and which can 

keep the chromic acid aerosol formation to a minimum and prevent bursting. 

 

5

http://www.nasf.org/Content/NavigationMenu/GRISSUES/Environment/default.htm 

21
22
2 Survey of the global use of PFOS 

in the chrome-plating industry 

Previously, PFOS was used for both decorative chrome plating and hard 

chrome plating processes but new technology applying chromium-(III) 

instead of chromium-(VI) has made PFOS use in decorative chrome plating 

outdated – even though it may still be used somewhere around the world. As 

of June 2008, the use of PFOS as mist suppressant in decorative chrome 

plating became illegal in the EU (Directive 2006/122/EC). 

For hard chrome plating, the process with chromium-(III) does not function. 

Therefore, the use of PFOS as mist suppressing, wetting agent for hard 

chrome plating has been considered essential, and is still permitted in the EU 

today and is an accepted use in the Stockholm Convention. 

This chapter describes the use of PFOS in the chrome plating industry. The 

information gathered usually covers total chrome plating including decorative 

plating, but it is essential to realise that non-decorative hard chrome plating is 

carried out under much more aggressive conditions, for which reason PFOS is 

still used extensively for this purpose. 

The survey was carried out in the period October 2009 to summer 2010. 

2.1 Use of PFOS in Denmark 

The companies in Denmark carrying out non-decorative hard chrome plating 

were contacted in order to learn about the yearly consumption of PFOS as 

mist suppressant. Only four companies in Denmark are carrying out such 

work. These four companies are: 

 “a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S” situated in Hvidovre 

 “Chembo A/S” situated in Kvistgård 

 “Galvano APS” situated in Svendborg 

 “NOF Nordic Overfladebehandling” situated in Gelsted. 

Two of these companies are using PFOS based mist suppressants and two are 

not. The non-PFOS based alternative used by the two companies is, however, 

a fluorinated alternative. Precisely, which fluorinated substance that is used is 

confidential but it is probably the fluorotelomer derivative 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (CAS no. 27619-97-2)(see Table 3-1) that has 

been identified as an alternative in other mist suppressant chemicals. 

Furthermore, different suppliers of PFOS for the chrome plating industry 

were contacted as well as the Danish chrome plating industry in order to learn 

about the annually consumption of PFOS for non-decorative hard chrome 

plating. The suppliers were asked about what they had sold to Danish 

companies, and the Danish chrome plating industry was asked to estimate 

their annual consumption of PFOS. Information from these suppliers showed 

that the total annual purchase of (pure) PFOS in the chrome plating industry 

in Denmark in 2008 and/or 2009 was about 28 kg. The chrome plating 

23
industry in Denmark estimates that about 10 kg of (pure) PFOS is used 

annually for non-decorative hard chrome plating. The difference between the 

two figures may be due to the fact that purchase and use are not coinciding, 

e.g. large amount of PFOS has been bought for more than one year. 

Furthermore, the calculation of the 10 and 28 kilos respectively, has been 

based on an estimated range of total use of PFOS mist suppressant chemical 

multiplied with the range of PFOS content as stated on the material safety 

data sheet. The calculations are therefore uncertain. Finally, the information 

from the suppliers is from different years. Some suppliers gave information 

for the year 2008 and some for the year 2009. In 2008, the ban of PFOS 

entered into force in Denmark. Some of the PFOS sold may therefore have 

been to other metal plating than non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

The concentration of the PFOS in the mist suppressant chemical formulation 

is typically 1-15 % depending on the formulation (supplier), and the amount 

of the formulation to be used for a hard chrome plating bath is typically 

between 10 – 60 ml for a 100 liter chrome bath – of course depending on the 

concentration of PFOS in the mist suppressant chemical. Additional PFOS 

needs to be added to the chrome bath on a regular basis, as PFOS is being 

degraded in the chrome bath. The degree of PFOS consumption depends on 

the electrical charge (ampere hours) used for the chrome bath. 

2.2 Global use of PFOS 

In order to find out which PFOS based mist suppressants that are used for 

non-decorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)), a number of suppliers 

of mist suppressant were contacted and asked to give information about the 

global use of PFOS mist suppressant. 

The following suppliers of mist suppressants for the Danish and international 

markets were contacted: 

 Atotech Skandinavien AB (Sweden) 

 EngTech Scandinavia A/S (Denmark) 

 Surtec Scandinavia ApS (Denmark) 

 Galvano Kemi (Denmark) 

 Enthone (Cookson Electronics) (Sweden) 

 Kiesow Dr. Brinkmann GmbH (Germany) 

 GalvaNord (Elplatek) (Denmark) 

 Dr. Günter Dobberschütz (Germany) 

 CL Technology GmbH (Germany) 

 Schlötter Galvanotechnik (Germany) 

 Chembright (China) 

 MacDermid (US) 

 Plating Resources, Inc. (USA) 

The consumption of PFOS in Denmark and the Nordic countries was 

estimated by using information about the percentage concentration of PFOS 

in the commercial product and multiplying this with the total sale of PFOS 

based mist suppressant products. 

Furthermore, an Internet/literature search was performed in order to estimate 

the consumption of PFOS for non-decorative hard chrome plating 

(chromium-(VI)) in other areas of the world. The results are shown in Table 

2-1. 

24
Most literature does not distinguish between the amount of PFOS used for 

non-decorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)) and for other purposes 

within metal plating. Therefore, in most cases, the amounts in the table below 

cover the entire metal plating industry and not only non-decorative hard 

chrome plating. Furthermore, most literature data is more than five years old 

and therefore it does not account for the fact that PFOS in the EU was 

banned for other purposes than non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

One of these sources is the OECD report published in 2005. OECD 

conducted a survey about the production and use of PFOS, PFAS, and 

PFOA, related substances and products/mixtures containing these substances. 

In this report, the total use of PFOS related substances for metal plating was 

estimated by information from 10 different OECD countries. The data 

provided represented the year 2003 (OECD, 2005). 

However, there is one new source of information from the European 

Commission (2010). They have gathered information about the 

implementation of the restriction of PFOS in electroplating applications. In 

this paper, the European countries have reported the amounts used of PFOS 

as mist suppressant – sometimes explicitly stated as mist suppressant for hard 

chrome plating. Most figures are new – from 2008 or 2009. Figures from 

2008 may be higher than figures from 2009, as the restriction on PFOS within 

the chrome plating industry entered into force in the middle of 2008. For 

most of the European countries, including Denmark, it is stated that PFOS is 

not used for non-decorative hard chrome plating. However, this may not be 

entirely true, as in the case of Denmark, the Danish EPA has reported that 

there is no use of PFOS in the non-decorative hard chrome plating industry in 

Denmark, as no use of PFOS can be found within the Danish Product 

Register. However, as the mist suppressants used in this industry is not 

classified as dangerous, no reporting to the Danish Product Register is 

required. 

Because of this recent inventory of the use of PFOS for non-decorative hard 

chrome plating in the EU, the PFOS use data for the EU only represents the 

use for non-decorative hard chrome plating, as this is one of few exemptions 

from the restriction of use of PFOS. However, data from other parts of the 

world may include the entire metal plating sector and not only non-decorative 

hard chrome plating. 

Another new report prepared for UNIDO (United Nations Industrial 

Development Organization) Regional Office in China from December 2009 

has also collected all publicly available information on the uses of PFOS 

(Carloni, 2009). Data on use has been reported between the year 2000 and 

2008. This data is presented in the text below if other sources have not been 

found. 

Table 2-1 Total annual reported use of PFOS based mist suppressants for (non-decorative hard) 

chromium-(VI) plating. More detailed descriptions/explanations can be found below. 

Country PFOS (kg)* 

annually Industry covered References/comments 

Denmark 10 – 28 kg 

Non-decorative hard Cr-(VI) plating 

(and perhaps partly other metal 

plating activities for the year 2008). 

Info from Danish industry (2009) and 

suppliers to Danish industry (2008). 

Calculated. 

Norway 0 kg Chrome plating. SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/14, 

2009. 

Sweden 26 – 71 kg 

(250 kg) 

Hard chrome plating and decorative 

chrome plating. 

KEMI, 2004, states a use of 26 kg. 

Swedish Product Register (2008) 

25
Country PFOS (kg)* 

annually Industry covered References/comments 

states a use of 71 kg. European Commission, 2010 states a use of 250 kg. 

Finland 5 – 20 kg As mist suppressant in Cr-(VI) 

electroplating. 

European Commission, 2010. No 

information on when the data is from. 

Nordic 

countries 

(including 

DK) 

90 kg 

Non-decorative hard chrome plating 

(and perhaps partly other metal 

plating activities for the year 

2007/2008). 

Info from suppliers Nordic suppliers 

(data a mix from 2007, 2008, and 

2009). Calculated. 

Germany 1883 kg All electroplating processes. European Commission, 2010. No 

information on when the data is from. 

Belgium < 218 kg Cr-(VI) electroplating. As mist 

suppressant and wetting agent. 

European Commission, 2010. No 

information on when the data is from. 

218 kg is reported as a total of use as 

mist suppressant and wetting agent. 

Czech 

Republic < 23 kg Cr-(VI) electroplating. As mist suppressant and wetting agent. 

European Commission, 2010. Expected 

use in 2009. Use as mist suppressant 

in 2008 as was reported to be 165 kg. 

Italy 

(< 2000 kg) 

0 kg 

As acid mist suppressant (for the year 

2003). 

Now a use of zero. 

OECD (2005). 

EC (2010). 

Romania 0 kg Secretariat of the Stockholm 

Convention (SSC, 2008). 

Slovenia 65 kg As wetting agent for Cr-(VI) plating. European Commission (2010). 

UK 120 – 135 kg 

As mist suppressant for Cr-(VI) 

electroplating (for the year 2008 (last 

half)). 

European Commission (2010). Use 

after the restriction of PFOS entered 

into force. 

France 200 – 695 kg 

Total metal chrome plating including 

decorative plating (200 kg in 2006). 

695 kg was used for chrome plating in 

2008. 

SC UNEP POPRC Draft (2010). 

European Commission (2010). 

The 

Netherlands < 150 kg Chrome plating. SC UNEP POPRC Draft (2010). 

EU 

2700 – 3200 kg 

(8,600 – 

10,000 kg) 

Today – after the restriction of PFOS 

for other uses than hard chrome 

plating. For metal plating including 

decorative plating (for the year 2003). 

European Commission (2010). 

Together with information on sale to 

Nordic countries. 

OECD (2005), RPA & BRE (2004). 

Switzerland 200 – 500 kg 

As mist suppressant and surfactant 

within metal plating (for the year 

2007). 

FOEN, 2009. 

Canada 3,000 kg 

As surfactant in the electroplating 

sector (for the year 2004). Primarily 

used for metal plating. 

CEPA, 2006. 

USA < 7983 kg 

Total use/production of PFOS related 

substances. The use for metal plating 

is of course much smaller. 

Carloni, 2009. 

China 25,000 kg Entire metal plating industry including 

decorative plating (for the year 2006?). MEP of China (2008). 

Japan 0 kg 

Total metal plating including 

decorative chrome plating as well as 

other metal plating processes (2007). 

According to new information (2010), 

Japan has stopped the use of PFOS for 

metal chrome plating today. 

SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/13 (2007). 

Carloni (2009). 

SC UNEP POPRC Draft (2010). 

Australia 1,070 kg As mist suppressant for metal plating. 

Calculated amount by use of NICNAS 

Alert No. 8, 2008 & NICNAS Alert No. 

5, 2007. 

Latin America ? No information 

Africa > 0 kg 

PFOS is used in some African 

countries for metal plating. The 

amount is unknown (Carloni, 2009). 

Worldwide 891 kg 

Non-decorative hard chrome plating 

(and perhaps partly other metal 

plating activities for the year 

2008/2009). 

Info exclusively from contacted 

suppliers (data from 2008 or 2009). 

Info from three suppliers. Many 

contacted suppliers did not respond. 

Global 32 – 40.7 tons Sum of the above (calculated) 

* Calculated as pure PFOS and not as diluted PFOS product 

26
2.2.1 Denmark 

As described above in section 2.1 ”Use of PFOS in Denmark”, the 

information from the Danish non-decorative hard chrome industry together 

with information from suppliers of mist suppressant chemicals to the Danish 

industry indicates that the total use of PFOS for one year is between 10 and 

28 kg calculated as pure PFOS. The concentration of PFOS in the mist 

suppressant chemical formulation is typically 1-15% depending on the 

formulation (supplier). 

The low value is the use estimated by the industry and the high value is 

amounts sold by suppliers to Danish companies. Both numbers are calculated 

by multiplying the estimated/sold amount with the content of PFOS indicated 

by percentage range on the material safety data sheet. 

2.2.2 Nordic countries 

When information was obtained from suppliers about the use of PFOS in 

Denmark, the Nordic suppliers were at the same time asked about 

information on sold amounts of PFOS to Nordic countries. The contacted 

suppliers reported a total amount of 90 kg calculated as pure PFOS for the 

years 2007/2008 or 2009 (depending on the supplier). In all, three of the 

contacted suppliers sold PFOS mist suppressant chemicals to the Nordic 

countries during this time period. The total amount (calculated as pure 

PFOS) was 90 kg. There could be other suppliers of PFOS for use as mist 

suppressants for non-decorative hard chrome plating in the Nordic countries. 

Norway 

Norway has reported in an action plan for PFAS (perfluoroalkyl substances) 

and PFOS-related substances that the major areas of use for PFOS-related 

substances in Norway are fire-fighting foams and the chrome-plating industry 

(SFT, 2005). No information about the specific use of PFOS is mentioned. 

In Carloni (2009), it is reported that Norway has submitted information to the 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants – POPs Review 

Committee (POPRC) that the estimated use of PFOS in Norway for metal 

plating is 3-5 liters. It seems that is data is from 2005 or 2006. 

According to a document by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent 

Organic Pollutants (SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/14, 2009), the 

Norwegian Galvano Industry Organisation (NGLF) has reported that their 

suppliers no longer provide wetting/anti-mist agent for chromium plating. 

Instead they provide PFOS-free tensides. NGLF considers the performance 

of these alternatives to be insufficient and is currently developing better 

alternatives to PFOS and alternative technology to solve the problem with 

airborne loss of hexavalent chromium from the baths. Where possible the 

chromium-(VI) process is being substituted by the chromium-(III) process. 

This information seems more recent than the information from Carloni 

(2009). It is therefore assumed that the use of PFOS in Norway is zero. 

Sweden 

In an action plan from 2004, Sweden has reported that the use of PFOSrelated chemicals for metal plating in 2002 was 3% of the total use of PFOSrelated chemicals i.e. 3% of 862 kg = 26 kg (KEMI, 2004). This estimate was 

27
based on information from suppliers as well as information from the Swedish 

Product Register. 

More recent information from the Swedish Product Register shows that the 

use of PFOS and PFOS-related substances (substances that degrade to PFOS 

in the environment) is about 71 kg in 2008 for the industry “surface industry 

and coating of metals”6

. 

However, these numbers (from 2002 and 2008) are for the entire metal 

plating industry and the 2002 data before the phase out of the use of PFOS 

for decorative chrome plating as well. The Swedish Product Register has a 

rule (similar to Denmark) that only quantities exceeding 100 kg annually 

should be reported to the Product Register. The amount registered here will 

therefore always be underestimated. 

The information received in this project from the three suppliers – a total 

supply of PFOS mist suppressants of 90 kg – therefore seems reasonable for 

the annual use within all Nordic countries. 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS used 

for chrome (VI) electroplating processes in Sweden is 250 kg annually. There 

is no information on which year the data is from. This is a much higher 

number (ten times higher) than the amount estimated in 2004 by the Swedish 

Chemicals Agency. There is no information on how they have reached this 

amount. As the consumption according to the suppliers of mist suppressants 

contacted in this study is much lower – even though it is a sum for all Nordic 

countries – it seems that the amount of 26 to 71 kg for use in Sweden alone is 

more believable than the amount of 250 kg. 

Finland

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS used as 

mist suppressants in chrome VI electroplating processes is 5 to 20 kg 

annually. There is no information on which year the data is from. The 

consumption of PFOS is similar to that calculated for Denmark for 2009. 

2.2.3 Germany 

In the OECD report (2005), it is stated that Germany had a production of 

PFOS (tetraethyl ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate) of between 10 and 

30 tons in the year 2003 (OECD, 2005). That produced amount covered use 

as mist suppressant in the electroplating industry as well as surfactant in the 

photographic processing industry. This amount covers, therefore, more than 

just non-decorative hard chrome plating and will be lower today after the 

restriction of PFOS has entered into force. Furthermore, as this amount 

represents a produced amount, the PFOS may be sold and used in other 

countries, and not only in Germany. 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS used 

for all electroplating processes in Germany is 1883 kg annually. There is no 

information on which year data is from. If the information is from 2008 or 

earlier, the amount also covers other allowed uses within the electroplating 

industry. The European Commission states that the amount of PFOS covers 

all electroplating processes in Germany. The amount used for non-decorative 

hard chrome plating only will be somewhat smaller. 

 

6 Information from IVL, September 2010. 

28
2.2.4 Belgium 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS used as 

mist suppressant and wetting agent is 218 kg annually. There is no 

information on which year data is from. The amount used for non-decorative 

hard chrome plating only will be somewhat smaller. 

2.2.5 Czech Republic 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS used as 

mist suppressant for hard chrome plating was 278 kg in 2007 and 165 kg in 

2008 where the ban of PFOS entered into force. Only 23 kg is expected to be 

used as both mist suppressant in hard chrome plating and wetting agents in 

the electroplating process in 2009. The amount used for non-decorative hard 

chrome plating only will be somewhat smaller. 

2.2.6 Italy 

The OECD (2005) survey about the production and use of PFOS related 

substances stated that in the year 2003 Italy had a manufacture/import of less 

than 2000 kg PFOS as acid mist suppressant. This amount probably covers 

more than just non-decorative hard chrome plating and will be lower today 

after the restriction of PFOS has entered into force. Furthermore, this amount 

could represent a produced amount (the survey just states 

“manufacture/import”). The PFOS may therefore be sold and used in other 

countries and not only in Italy. 

However, according to the European Commission (2010), the amount of 

PFOS used as mist suppressant for hard chrome plating in Italy is zero. In this 

document it is stated that PFOS is “not used in processes subject under the 

derogation in paragraph 3 (c) of Directive 2006/122/EC”, i.e. mist 

suppressants for non-decorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)) and 

wetting agents for use in controlled electroplating systems. 

2.2.7 Romania 

In April 2008, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development in 

Romania has informed the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention that 

Romania neither produces nor uses PFOS (SSC, 2008). This is also reported 

in the document from the European Commission (2010). In this document, it 

is stated that PFOS is “not used in processes subject under the derogation in 

paragraph 3 (c) of Directive 2006/122/EC”, i.e. mist suppressants for nondecorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)) and wetting agents for use 

in controlled electroplating systems. 

2.2.8 Slovenia 

According to European Commission (2010), Slovenia used 65 kg PFOS as a 

wetting agent for chrome (VI) plating in 2008. The amount used in 2007 was 

about the same (about 54 kg). 

2.2.9 UK 

The OECD (2005) survey about the production and use of PFOS, PFAS, 

PFOA, and related substances, stated that the UK manufactured/imported 

29
less than 500 kg PFOS (tetraethylammonium salt) for metal chrome plating in 

the year 2003. According to RPA & BRE (2004), the majority of the 500 kg is 

used in chrome plating. They estimated that about 470 kg is used within 

chrome plating, but stated that the amount could be as high as 2,500 kg 

(based on estimation that UK represents 20% of the total EU consumption). 

This amount of course covered more than just non-decorative hard chrome 

plating and will be lower today after the restriction of PFOS has entered into 

force. 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS sold in 

the UK was 380 kg in 2008. After July 2008, where the restriction of PFOS 

entered into force, 150 kg were used and only as mist suppressant. It is stated 

that only 80-90% of this amount, i.e. 120 to 135 kg, is used during 

electroplating work. This amount is used as the amount for the UK, as it is 

more up-to-date. 

2.2.10 France 

According to a Draft Guidance document on Alternatives to PFOS and its 

derivatives prepared for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants, the use of PFOS in France for chrome plating is 200 kg. There is 

no information on when the data is from (SC UNEP POPRC Draft, 2010). 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS 

purchased for use in chrome (VI) electroplating processes was 695 kg in 

2008. It is stated that the amount of PFOS was stocked, but no use occurred 

in 2008. 

2.2.11 The Netherlands 

According to a Draft Guidance document on Alternatives to PFOS and its 

derivatives prepared for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants, the use of PFOS in the Netherlands for chrome plating is less than 

150 kg. There is no information on which year data is from (SC UNEP 

POPRC Draft, 2010). 

According to the European Commission (2010), the amount of PFOS - 

actually the compound TEA-PFOS (Tetraethyl ammonium perfluorooctyl 

sulfonate) used for metal plating surface treatment - is between 65 and 390 kg 

annually. There is no information on when the data is from. The amount used 

for non-decorative hard chrome plating only is of course smaller. Therefore, 

the above amount below 150 kg is assumed to be more correct. 

2.2.12 EU 

The OECD (2005) survey about the production and use of PFOS related 

substances stated that use as mist suppressant for chrome plating is one of the 

essential uses of PFOS. It is estimated that the total use of PFOS related 

chemicals within the metal plating industry was 10,000 kg in 2003. This 

amount covered the entire metal plating industry and not only non-decorative 

hard chrome plating. Furthermore, this amount was much higher than today, 

because of the restriction of the use of PFOS in 2008. 

This estimated amount of 10,000 kg PFOS is probably based on the report by 

Defra (RPA & BRE, 2004) which stated that a company in Germany has 

30
estimated the use of PFOS-related substances in the metal plating industry in 

the EU was between 8,600 and 10,000 kg. 

According to the European Commission (2010), the following countries have 

reported that PFOS is “not used in processes subject under the derogation in 

paragraph 3 (c) of Directive 2006/122/EC”, i.e. mist suppressants for nondecorative hard chrome plating (chromium-(VI)) and wetting agents for use 

in controlled electroplating systems: Bulgaria, Denmark (however, this is not 

true according to the discoveries in this project), Estonia, Greece, Spain, 

Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, 

Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia. 

This means that the total use in the EU today is estimated to be around 2,684 

to 3,194 kg and probably larger, if some of the countries above have not 

registered a use of PFOS, although PFOS still are used (as is the case of 

Denmark). The sum of 2,684 to 3,194 kg is found by adding the amounts (or 

ranges) reported by Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic, the UK, France, 

and the Netherlands together with the amounts of PFOS sold to Nordic 

countries (reported by suppliers in this project). 

However, it is clear that the use of PFOS has declined drastically because of 

the restriction of the use of PFOS in 2008. The estimated use of 10,000 kg 

PFOS in 2003 is therefore drastically reduced. However, this amount of 

10,000 kg also covered the entire metal plating industry and not only nondecorative hard chrome plating. 

Europe 

The amount listed above covers the EU countries. The amount of PFOS used 

in Europe is larger. Switzerland (below) is the only non-EU European country 

where information of the use of PFOS has been found. 

2.2.13 Switzerland 

According to the OECD (2005) survey, the use of PFOS for metal plating in 

the year 2000 was estimated to be 190 kg. 

A substance flow analysis of PFOS and PFOA in Switzerland has been 

performed. According to that survey, the use of PFOS for metal plating (mist 

suppressant and surfactant) was estimated to be about 300 kg of PFOS 

annually (but within the range of 200-500 kg annually) for the year 2007 

(FOEN, 2009). 

2.2.14 Canada 

Canada performed in 2005 a use pattern survey of PFOS (CEPA, 2006). 

Companies were required to report if they were involved in manufacture, 

export, or import of PFOS in amounts exceeding 100 kg in concentrations of 

greater than 10 grams per kilogram for the 2004 calendar year. The survey 

showed that the import of PFOS related compounds have essentially ceased 

since 2002 and showed that there are no manufactures or exporters of PFOS 

in Canada. Only one substance was imported into Canada representing a 

quantity of approximately 3 tons of PFOS. The imported substance was sold 

as a product that is used as a surfactant in the electroplating sector. The 

survey stated that the potential does exist for PFOS and PFOS containing 

products and articles to be imported into Canada in greater quantities in the 

future as some PFOS production has been identified in other countries. 

31
In Carloni (2009), it is stated that this import of 3 tons PFOS mostly is used 

for metal plating. Furthermore, it is stated that there are approximately 219 

users of this PFOS in the sector, resulting in an average annual use of PFOS 

per user of about 14 kg. This is in line with the annual use of Danish chrome 

platers. 

2.2.15 USA 

The US EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act established in 2000, 2002, and 

2007, SNURs (Significant New Use Rules) for the use of PFOS and PFAS in 

the USA. In 2000 13 PFOS and PFAS related chemicals were covered by the 

SNUR and in 2002 additional 75 PFAS related chemicals. The SNURs 

require prior notice before any new manufacture or import of these PFAS 

chemicals. Some uses are exempted from the rule. In 2007 the last SNUR was 

published. Additional 183 PFAS substances were added and the exemption of 

allowing one specific PFOS related chemical compound for use in metal 

plating was added as well. The PFOS chemical allowed for metal plating in 

the USA is tetraethyl ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate with the CAS no. 

56773-42-3 (US EPA, 2010; Carloni, 2009). 

According to Carloni (2009), this regulation of PFOS and PFOS related 

substances has resulted in a large decrease in the amounts of these substances 

being used in the USA – from approximately 2.9 million kg in the year 2000 

to less than 7,983 kg in the year 2006. This amount is for all uses – the 

amount used for chrome plating is of course smaller. 

In this project, a few US suppliers of mist suppressants for chrome plating 

were contacted. One supplier replied that they only sell PFOS free mist 

suppressants for chrome plating. There is no information on the amount sold. 

2.2.16 China 

China is the solely producer of PFOS after 3M stopped production in 2002. 

About 200 tons of PFOS is now produced annually in 15 factories in China. 

The production has a value of several million $.7

In April 2008, The Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (MEP) 

has sent information to the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention about the 

use of PFOS for metal plating in China. According to this information, China 

has not compiled a complete list of sectors that use PFOS, but has made an 

initial estimation based on an investigation. MEP (2008) reports that annually 

about 25 tons of PFOS-containing mist suppressants are used in the chrome 

plating industry in China. The PFOS containing mist suppressants used in 

China are FC-80 (CAS no. 2795-39-3 – PFOS potassium salt) and FC-248 

(CAS no. 56773-42-3 – PFOS tetraethylammonium salt).8

2.2.17 Japan 

For the Draft Risk Management Evaluation performed by the Stockholm 

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, it is stated that there are about 

 

7

 Mei Shengfang. China Association of Fluorine and silicone industry. Presentation at 

the International Workshop on new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. 8

 Jun HUANG, Tsinghua University. Presentation at the International Workshop on 

new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. 

32
1000 metal plating companies in Japan that use PFOS. Information from 

Japan in 2007 stated that only about 50 of these companies have changed 

their process to Chromium-(III) instead of Chromium-(VI). This means that 

950 companies in Japan used PFOS in their metal plating processes in 2007 

(SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/13, 2007). Since then more companies could 

have changed to the Chromium-(III) process, where PFOS is not necessary, 

instead of the Chromium-(VI) process. 

According to Carloni (2009), Japan has in 2007 reported to the POPs Review 

Committee (POPRC) of the Stockholm Convention that the total amount of 

PFOS estimated for use in metal plating in Japan is 2-3 tons annually. 

A 2009 survey showed that the Japanese use of PFOS for metal plating has 

ceased. Today, in Japan, only three essential applications are left for PFOS – 

and chrome plating is not one of them. PFOS is no longer allowed to be used 

for chrome plating in Japan.9

 Instead the compound Fumetrol® 21 is used as 

alternative.10

2.2.18 Australia 

According to the Australian Government (NICNAS Alert No. 8, 2008), the 

use of PFOS imported into Australia was 760 kg and 1,350 kg in the years 

2006 and 2007 respectively. No PFOS chemicals are produced in Australia. 

This data was achieved by a national survey performed in May, 2008. 

According to this survey, 99% of this PFOS amount was used as mist 

suppressants in metal plating. The current stocks of PFOS were 7.8 tons, 

where only 3% of this amount was PFOS stocks for metal plating – the PFOS 

stocks was mostly held by the fire fighting industry (97%). 

A similar survey was carried out in 2006 (NICNAS Alert No. 5, 2007). Here 

the stocks of PFOS in the end of 2005 were reported to be 9.36 tons PFOS. 

There is no report of how much of that PFOS amount is for metal plating. In 

2004 and 2005 no import of PFOS was reported. It is, however, stated that it 

is likely that importers and users may not know if products contain PFOS as 

the ingredient may not be listed on the Material Safety Data Sheet. 

The difference in the stocks between 2007 and 2005 is assumed to have been 

used (9.36 -7.8 tons = 1.56 tons). As mentioned above only 3% of the stocks 

in 2007 was for metal plating purposes. If it is assumed that only 3% of the 

stocks of PFOS in Australia is PFOS for mist suppressants for metal plating 

for both the year 2005 and 2007, then there has been an extra use of PFOS in 

the years 2005 and 2007 of 47 kg (3% of 9.36 – 7.8 tons), which is an average 

of 23.5 kg per year. To this amount should be added the average of the total 

imported amounts in 2006 and 2007 of 2.1 tons (99% of 0.76 + 1.35 tons). 

Using this information results in an average of about 1070 kg PFOS per year 

in the period of 2006 to 2007 used as mist suppressants in metal plating in 

Australia. 

 

9

Takashi Fukushima, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. 

Presentation at the International Workshop on new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. 10 Personal information from Takashi Fukushima, Director for Chemical 

Management Policy from MEKI, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and 

Industry, July 2010. 

33
2.2.19 Latin America 

According to Carloni (2009), there is limited information about the use of 

PFOS for chrome plating in Latin America. Brazil has provided information 

about the use of PFOS to the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) of the 

Stockholm Convention. PFOS and PFOS related substances in Brazil are 

mostly used in pesticides. 

2.2.20 Africa 

Three African countries have submitted information about the use of PFOS 

to the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) of the Stockholm Convention 

(Carloni, 2009). No amounts were reported only that: 

 Algeria has metal plating as one of five main use areas for the use of 

PFOS. 

 Congo has not identified or registered any PFOS or PFOS related 

substances. 

 Zambia has listed metal plating as one of six areas of use for PFOS 

and PFOS related substances. 

34
3 Survey of possible alternatives to 

PFOS for chrome plating 

In this chapter the possible alternatives to PFOS as mist suppressant for hard 

chrome plating are described. Both chemical alternatives and possible physical 

alternatives are described. 

The chemical alternatives described are identified primarily by contact to 

suppliers of mist suppressants for the chrome plating industry but also 

information from professional and international organisations was included. 

3.1 Chemical alternatives 

The chemical alternatives to PFOS and derivatives as mist suppressant for 

hard chrome plating are either fluorinated or non-fluorinated. 

3.1.1 Information from organisations and institutions 

The opinion of the German Central Association of Surface Treatment 

Professionals e.V. (ZVO) is convinced that there still is a need for PFOS for 

hard chrome plating, but the industrial sector will continue to reduce the use 

of PFOS and replace it by alternatives where possible (ZVO, 2008). ZVO 

emphasise that the use of fluorine-free products requires higher technical 

efforts compared to the use of PFOS and that there is no long-term 

experience. ZVO has reported the availability of PFOS-free alternative 

products from 10 German supplier companies.11 Information is lacking about 

the exact chemical compounds. Three of the products were fluorinated 

chemicals and seven were fluorine-free chemicals. The non-fluorinated 

alternatives were not stable enough in the hard chrome bath. It is stated that 

all 10 alternative products could be used for decorative chrome plating, for 

which alternative Chromium-(III) processes already exist. Alternative 

surfactants for this process are presently studied at the University of 

Wuppertal, Germany.12

The Norwegian Galvano Industry Organisation (NGLF) has reported that 

their suppliers no longer provide PFOS wetting/anti-mist agent for chrome 

plating. They provide PFOS-free tensides instead. However, NGLF considers 

the performance of those alternatives to be insufficient and is currently 

developing better alternatives to PFOS and alternative technology to solve the 

problem with airborne loss of chromium-(VI) from the baths. But NGLF 

reports that the industry has started to phase out the use of PFOS containing 

wetting/mist agent, by using the Chromium-(III) process instead of the 

Chromium-(VI) process, where possible, even though the substituting cost is 

estimated by industry to be approximately 100,000 NOK (~15-16,000 US $) 

per bath (Information from SFT, 2009). 

 

11 Personal information from Christoph Matheis, Zentralverbandes 

Oberflächentechnik e. V. (ZVO), D-40724 Hilden; March 6, 2009. 

12 Personal information from Jutta Hildenbrand, Uni-Wuppertal, October 15, 2009. 

35
Larger closed tanks or increased ventilation combined with extraction of 

Chromium-(VI) from filters have been suggested as alternative solutions for 

the applications where a use of Chromium-(III) is not yet possible. However, 

increased ventilation will result in increased energy consumption and 

therefore CO2-emission and loss of chromium from the bath. Therefore, 

increased ventilation is not considered to be working in practice. 

The 2006 OECD survey has identified use of perfluorobutane sulfonate (C4

PFAS) as an alternative mist suppressant (OECD, 2006). However, 

according to a Chinese producer of PFOS chemicals, C4 fluorochemicals 

cannot be used as mist suppressants for non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

In China the PFOS available alternatives used for chrome plating are F-53 

(potassium 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-(perfluorohexyloxy)ethane sulfonate), F-53B 

(potassium 2-(6-chloro-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-dodecafluorohexyloxy)-

1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane sulfonate) and Fumetrol®

 21(1H,1H, 2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid).13 In addition they use physical measures, e.g. 

ventilation, close tank, and physical covers (net, balls). 

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

H

H

S

H

H

OH

O

O

1H,1H, 2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) 

F

F

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

S

F

F

OH

O

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F-53 basic skeleton 

(in F-53B one of the fluorine atoms is replaced with chlorine) 

In Japan, where PFOS is not considered essential for chrome plating any 

more, Fumetrol®

 21 is also used as an alternative.14

3.1.2 Contact to producers and suppliers/Internet search 

In order to find out which chemical alternatives that exist to PFOS as mist 

suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating, the four companies in 

Denmark carrying out non-decorative hard chrome plating and their suppliers 

of mist suppressant were contacted. 

The suppliers were asked to present alternatives to PFOS as mist suppressant, 

if any. The following suppliers of mist suppressants for the Danish and 

international markets were contacted: 

 Atotech Skandinavien AB (Sweden) 

 EngTech Scandinavia A/S (Denmark) 

 

13 Jun HUANG, Tsinghua University. Presentation at the International Workshop on 

new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010.

14 Personal information from Takashi Fukushima, Director for Chemical 

Management Policy from MEKI, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and 

Industry, July 2010. 

36
 MacDermid (USA) 

 Surtec Scandinavia ApS (Denmark) 

 GalvanoKemi (Denmark) 

 Enthone (Cookson Electronics) (Sweden) 

 Kiesow Dr. Brinkmann GmbH (Germany) 

 Dr. Günter Dobberschütz (Germany) 

 CL Technology GmbH (Germany) 

 TIB Chemicals (Germany) – a producer of chemicals (does not sell 

directly to chromium platers, but to some of the companies mentioned 

on this list) 

 Schlötter (Germany) 

 Plating Resources, Inc. (USA) 

 Uyemura International (USA) 

 Growel Grauer & Weil India Ltd. (India) 

 Chembright (China) 

Suppliers of mist suppressants on the international market were found by 

searching on the Internet with different search words and different 

combinations of search words (in both German and English) like: 

 “mist suppressant” /”fume suppressant” 

 “hard chrome plating”/”hard chromium plating” 

 “PFOS free” 

 “PFOS-freies” / ”PFOS-frei” / “ohne PFOS” 

 “Netzmittel für Chrombäder” /”tenside chrombad” 

The following non-PFOS chemical alternatives were found (see Table 3-1). 

Table 3-1 Non-PFOS alternatives identified 

Product name Company Substance Fluorinated Fluorfree 

Fumetrol 21 Atotech Based on CAS 27619-97-2 

1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid X 

Wetting agent CR Atotech Based on CAS 27619-97-2 

1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid X 

MiniMist Liquid/ 

ChromKlad Wetter 

MacDermid Based on CAS 27619-97-2 

1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid X 

SurTec 850 S SurTec Scandinavia No information about the alternative product other 

than it is PFOS free ? 

SurTec 850 SK4 

(quadruple 

concentration of the 

SurTec 850 S above) 

SurTec Scandinavia No information about the alternative product other 

than it is PFOS free and free of fluorine. Can be 

used in all Cr-(VI) based processes – including hard 

chrome. 

X 

Netzmittel Dün 20 GalvanoKemi No information about the alternative product other 

than it is non-PFOS, but contains fluor X 

Wetting agent 

SLOTOCHROM SV 31 

Schloetter.com No information about the alternative product other 

than it is free of fluorine. It is stated that wetting 

agent must be added every day in order to work 

properly. Schlöetter informs that it cannot be used 

for hard chrome plating – only decorative chrome 

plating 

X 

CL-Chromprotector 

BA 

CL-Technology.de No information about the alternative product other 

than it is completely PFT (perfluorinated organic 

tenside) free. Contains 0.2 % ethanol. Other 

hazardous ingredients are not listed. 

? 

Non Mist-L Uyemura.com Non PFOS based ? 

Cancel ST-45 Plating Resources, 

Inc. (plating.com) 

Non PFOS based – no more information available ? 

FS-600 High foam Plating Resources, 

Inc. (plating.com) 

Non PFOS based, but is fluoropolymer based – no 

more information available X 

FS-750 Low foam Plating Resources, 

Inc. (plating.com) 

Non PFOS based, but is fluoropolymer based – no 

more information available X 

37
Product name Company Substance Fluorinated 

Fluorfree 

Ankor Wetting Agent 

FF 

Enthone Inc. 

(a Cookson 

Electronics 

Company) 

Free of fluorine. Contains (Z)-Octadec-9-enylamine, 

ethoxylated. It is stated that the product must be 

added continuously in order to maintain the proper 

levels and performance. However, it can only be 

used for bright chromium, not for hard chrome 

plating. 

 X 

TIB Suract CRH TIB Chemicals The alternative has a soap-based structure and is 

free of fluorine. This product is sold to some of the 

companies listed in this table under different names 

– but which is confidential. 

Must be added continuously in drips (100 ml/hour) 

with circulation in order to work properly. 

X 

PROQUEL OF Kiesow Dr. 

Brinkmann 

Contains no PFOS. Contains an aqueous surfactant 

solution with an anionic surfactant. It is based on a 

fluorinated surfactant. No further specific 

information about the chemical content. Can be 

used for non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

X 

F-53 Chromic Fog 

Inhibitor 

Hangzhou 

Dayangchem Co. 

Ltd. 

Potassium 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-

(perfluorohexyloxy)ethane sulfonate X 

F-53B Chromic Fog 

Inhibitor 

Hangzhou 

Dayangchem Co. 

Ltd. 

Perfluorochloro ether sulfonate for hard chrome 

plating (potassium 2-(6-chloro-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-

dodecafluorohexyloxy)-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 

sulfonate) 

X 

Most of the alternatives identified are non-PFOS based alternatives, but are 

still fluorinated. Some alternatives are based on CAS 27619-97-2 also called 

1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (or 6-2 FTS (fluorotelomer 

sulfonate)). This compound has the following structure (see Figure 3-1) 

compared to PFOS that is fully fluorinated (see Figure 3-2). 

Figure 3-1 Alternative to PFOS as mist suppressant - 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS 27619-97-2) 

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

H

H

S

H

H

OH

O

O

Figure 3-2 PFOS mist suppressant - Heptadecafluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS 1763-23-1) 

S

OH

O

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Talking to the different companies has shown that the non-PFOS based but 

fluorinated alternatives do work and some companies have used these 

alternatives for a long period. The alternatives identified are: 

 Fumetrol®

 21 from Atotech, which is based on 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (CAS No. 27619-97-2). 

 Wetting Agent CR, Atotech, which is based on the same substance as 

above (CAS No. 27619-97-2). 

 MiniMist Liquid, MacDermid, which is based on the same substances 

as above (CAS No. 27619-97-2). 

 SurTec 850 S, SurTec Scandinavia. There is no information about 

the substance other than it is PFOS-free. 

 Netzmittel Dün 20, GalvanoKemi. There is no information about the 

substance other than it is PFOS-free. It is likely that it is based on the 

same substance as mentioned above. 

38
 PROQUEL OF, Kiesow Dr. Brinkmann. There is no information 

about the substance other than it is PFOS-free and based on a 

fluorinated surfactant. It is likely that it is based on the same substance 

as mentioned above. 

 Non Mist-L, Uyemura.com. There is no information about the 

substance other than it is not based on PFOS. 

 FS-600 High Foam, Plating Resources, Inc. There is no information 

about the substance other than it is PFOS free, but it is fluoropolymer 

based. 

 FS-750 Low Foam, Plating Resources, Inc. There is no information 

about the substance other than it is PFOS free, but it is fluoropolymer 

based. 

 F-53 and F-53B, Hangzhou Dayangchem Co, Ltd. These alternatives 

have been presented at an International workshop on new POPs in 

Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. They are based on the structure CF3

-(CF2)5-

O-(CF2)2-SO3K as also presented in section 3.1.1. 

However, for this project, it is also interesting to investigate alternatives that 

are non-PFOS and non-fluorinated. The following alternatives without 

fluorine have been identified: 

 SurTec 850 SK4, SurTec Scandinavia. There is no information about 

the chemical substance, as this is confidential. It can be used for hard 

chrome plating. This substance should be a quadruple concentration 

of the SurTec 850 S. SurTec 850 S is, however, only stated to be 

PFOS free according to the technical datasheet. 

 Wetting agent SLOTOCHROM SV 31, Schloetter (but no 

information about the chemical substance, as this is confidential). 

However, this alternative cannot be used for hard chrome plating. 

 Ankor Wetting Agent FF, Enthone (based on CAS 26635-93-8) – 

however, it can only be used for bright chromium, not for hard 

chrome plating. 

 TIB Suract CR-H, TIB Chemicals (but no information about the 

chemical substance as this is confidential). It can be used for hard 

chrome plating. 

The Ankor Wetting Agent FF®

 from Enthone (CAS 26635-93-8) is 

ethoxylated oleyl amine (R-N(CH2CH2O)Hm(CH2CH2O)Hn); see the 

structure below). However, it can only be used for bright chromium, not for 

hard chrome plating. 

Figure 3-3 Alternative to PFOS as mist suppressant – ethoxylated oleyl amine15

R N

O

O n

n

OH

OH

 

15 Structure found at 

http://chemicalland21.com/specialtychem/perchem/ETHOXYLATED%20OLEYL%

20AMINE.htm 

39
3.2 Physical alternatives (IPU) 

Physical alternatives could be attractive solutions compared to chemical 

alternatives as most chemical alternatives are fluorine based or potentially 

harmful to the electrolyte or unstable in the electrolyte. A physical alternative 

could possibly prevent chromium emission by three mechanisms: 

1. Avoid formation of aerosol 

2. Promote condensation of aerosol close to the electrolyte surface 

3. Avoid transportation of aerosol from the surface of the electrolyte 

The three mechanisms are discussed in more details below. 

Avoid formation of aerosol 

As the aerosols are developed when the developed hydrogen bobbles break 

and as hydrogen development is an unavoidable part of the chromium process 

no practical usable physical method for avoiding formation of aerosol is 

identified, only chemical alternative as described in 3.1. 

Promote condensation of aerosol close to the electrolyte surface 

A strategy for promotion of condensation of aerosol close to the electrolyte 

surface could be the use of highly hydrophobic surfaces in order to promote 

droplets from the electrolyte to form and fall back to the solution. Among 

hydrophobic surfaces, PTFE (coated) balls or mesh, are considered as the 

most suitable solutions because of highly hydrophilic properties combined 

with the chemical resistance towards the chromium electrolyte. 

In contrast to a dense cover, an “open” ball or mesh solution will enable 

developed hydrogen to penetrate through the cover. Such an “open” solution 

is expected to be found as a useful alternative if the open cover simultaneously 

will enable hydrogen penetration and promote condensation of aerosol close 

to the surface. Furthermore, it can be expected that the low surface tension of 

the PTFE will assist condensation of the aerosol. 

A mesh solution could be suitable for large scale series plating of uniform 

products whereas the ball solution will be more suitable for small scale plating 

for products of varying sizes. 

Avoid transportation of aerosol from the surface of the electrolyte 

At the initial stage of the present project, no physical alternative for avoiding 

transportation of aerosol from the surface of the electrolyte was identified. 

However, as discussed in chapter 5 when presenting the test results, no 

ventilation can apparently lower the chromium emission significantly. 

Development of process lines with a cover that prevents ventilation can be 

possible for large scale series plating of uniform products, whereas such 

process solutions are considered by plating shops to be more difficult to 

implement in small scale plating processes for products of varying sizes; such 

implementations would require a significant redesign of the production line. 

The very significant reduction of Cr6+ emission in the laboratory experiments 

when no ventilation was applied (as presented in chapter 5) inspires for 

further evaluations on possible physical alternatives for avoiding 

transportation of aerosol from the surface, which could be used in plating 

systems for frequently varying productions. 

40
4 Assessment of the feasibility of the 

alternatives 

The alternatives identified for use as mist suppressants for non-decorative 

hard chrome plating are very limited – at least when it comes to information 

about the chemical substances used in the mist suppressant products. 

In the following sections the economic, technical, and environmental aspects 

of the alternatives are described in order to choose the alternatives to be 

investigated further in the last part of the project. 

4.1 Economic assessment 

An economic assessment of the non-PFOS alternatives depends on: 

 The price of the chemicals and or physical alternatives 

 The amount needed during use 

 The expenses during substitution 

 Expenses to possible continuous addition of chemicals 

 Expenses related to possible break down of a continuous addition 

system, due to problems related to non-sufficient or excess additions 

of chemicals. 

The price of the chemicals 

Different suppliers of PFOS and non-PFOS alternatives were contacted in 

order to learn more about the price of the chemicals. However, we only 

received information about the price for a few of the chemicals and mostly for 

the PFOS products. 

The information received from the suppliers suggests that the price of the 

PFOS products used as mist suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome 

plating is around 100 to 200 DKK (13 EUR to 27 EUR) per kilo/liter. The 

price is dependant on the concentration of PFOS in the chemical. The 

cheaper products contain about 2-3 % PFOS whereas the more expensive 

products contains 3-7 % PFOS. 

In comparison one of the alternatives was found to cost 120 DKK (16 EUR) 

per kilo/liter. The price is not fully comparable as no information was received 

on the amounts to be used compared to a PFOS product. However, the 

supplier informed that the product was cheaper than using PFOS. Other 

information about the price of the non-PFOS alternatives was sparse. One 

supplier informed that their non-PFOS alternative is more expensive than 

PFOS (but not how much more expensive). 

In conclusion, the economic assessment of the non-PFOS alternatives based 

on the price alone is inconclusive. Some alternatives may be cheaper and 

some may be more expensive. 

41
The amount needed during use 

As mentioned above the total price of the alternative mist suppressant 

compared to using PFOS based mist suppressant of course depends on how 

much mist suppressant that has to be used during use. However, we have not 

received any information regarding this issue, other than some suppliers stated 

that their alternative was cheaper to use compared to PFOS and other stated 

that their alternative was more expensive to use compared to PFOS. 

The expenses during substitution 

In cases where a plater will shift from a PFOS-containing plating system to a 

plating system with an alternative to PFOS, it will normally not be necessary 

to exchange the electrolyte. Normally, it will be sufficient to stop addition of 

PFOS and start the use of the alternative when addition of mist suppressant is 

needed. In this case the only additional expense is the possible higher 

price/consumption of the PFOS alternative. 

Expenses to possible continuous addition of chemicals 

This will depend on the amount of chemical additions required to maintain a 

stable electrolyte. Often chromium depositions run continuously over night. If 

this will require additions of chemicals during nighttimes supervision of the 

system is required, due to the potential risk of breakdown of an addition 

system. If an addition system stops unexpected the consequences could be a 

large emission of chromium aerosol (see results in chapter 4) resulting in large 

economic and environmental problems. If an addition system unexpected 

overdoses an additive the consequences could be overfloating of the 

chromium electrolyte, resulting in large economic and environmental 

problems. 

Estimated costs of the use of an automatic addition system together with 

supervision over night time are expected to be 1,000 DKK per day (134 

EUR) for supervision including log registration. An automatic addition system 

could result in expenses of approximately 350,000 DKK per year (47,000 

EUR) plus expenses of establishment of the supervision equipment 

(estimation from a.h. nichro Haardchrom/Surfcoat). 

Expenses to possible break down of a continuous addition system 

This depends on the time interval from the break down until the breakdown is 

identified and the process stopped, which further depends on whether human 

supervision is used during night time. If no supervision is used out of normal 

working hours, the expenses can be very severe for the plater, depending on 

how much of the building, installations, and equipment being contaminated. 

4.2 Usability – technical 

Chemical alternatives which require no continuous addition and can be 

expected to be stable in the electrolyte will be technically easy to implement in 

a production. Such solutions exist among the fluorinated alternatives (e.g. 

Fumetrol®

 21). 

Non-fluorinated chemical alternatives might contain amine (e.g. Ankor 

Wetting Agent from Enthone). Amine might decompose into nitrate which is 

harmful for the chromium electrolyte, resulting in low quality depositions. 

Among the physical alternatives hollow PTFE (coated) balls or mesh are 

considered as the most usable solution from a technical point of view as 

42
discussed in section 3.2. From a practical point of view a mesh solution will be 

very difficult to work with in case of plating complex geometries and varying 

geometries. Hollow PTFE coated balls will be very flexible to work with as 

they will float at the surface of the electrolyte and will cover the electrolyte 

surface in a very flexible way. Massive PTFE balls will sink because of the 

high density compared to the chrome electrolyte. Several suppliers of massive 

PTFE balls exist. However, apparently hollow PTFE balls are not available on 

the market as a standard product. The effect of PTFE close to the electrolyte 

surface could be tested by using massive balls, kept close to the surface by a 

titanium mesh. A potentially successful result could possibly motivate future 

manufacturing of hollow PTFE (coated) balls. 

4.3 Comparative environmental and health assessment 

The information about chemical alternatives to PFOS as mist suppressant for 

hard chrome plating is very limited. 

One substance (1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS No. 

27619-97-2; C6

-fluorotelomer chemistry)) has positively been identified in 

three different alternative products used in more countries. The same 

substance may be used in other alternative products that are non-PFOS, but 

fluorine-based. However, we have not been able to confirm this because of 

confidentiality. 

Derivatives of perfluorobutane sulfonates (C4-perfluoroalkyl-chemistry) have 

also been suggested and may be in use – even though a Chinese producer of 

PFOS chemicals have informed that C4

 fluorochemicals cannot be used as 

mist suppressants for non-decorative hard chrome plating. 

In China some perhalogenated alkyl ether sulfonates (F-53 and F-53B) are 

used as alternatives. 

Finally, an alternative from Enthone described as a N-polyethoxylated 

oleylamine has been identified. It is, however, not likely that this alternative 

can be used for non-decorative hard chrome plating and it will not be 

included in the comparison. It is probably rather harmless and at least not 

persistent. 

Because the 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21), 

PFBS, F-53 and F-53B are the only identified chemical alternatives that can 

be used for hard chrome plating, and where the chemical composition have 

been identified, their environmental and health aspects will be compared with 

PFOS. 

4.3.1 PFOS 

This description of the environmental and health problems of PFOS is mostly 

based on the comprehensive description carried out in the project Survey of 

Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 99 (Jensen et al., 2008). 

4.3.1.1 Chemistry 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) is the best known perfluorinated 

compound. PFOS has a linear perfluoroalkyl carbon chain of 8 and a sulfonic 

acid functional group. 

43
S

OH

O

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

PFOS 

The C-F binding in PFOS and other PFCs is very strong. Thus the perfluoro 

chain is a stable identity which in practice is non-degradable in nature. The 

sulfonates are polar species which will not accumulate in fatty compartments 

but mainly in blood and liver, and these substances will often interact with 

polar sites in sediments. The low biodegradability of PFCs is, together with 

their tendency to bioaccumulate, characteristics which are typical of persistent 

organic pollutants (POPs). 

4.3.1.2 Environmental fate and levels 

PFOS has been detected in all environmental compartments globally. Most 

studies have, however, been performed on the North American continent, in 

Europe, and in Japan. 

PFOS and its salts are very stable and are not biodegradable in nature but will 

persist in the environment. Only under extreme laboratory conditions with 

addition of potent chemicals, high-energy radiation, and high temperatures 

some degradation may occur with formation of degradation products. 

A prevailing hypothesis on the origin of non-volatile perfluorinated 

compounds such as PFOS in remote places is that volatile precursors undergo 

long-range air transportation and hereby reach remote areas. 

The contamination of surface water by PFOS may pose an important intake 

source for the consumer if the surface water is used for production of drinking 

water. Particularly contaminated surface waters (e.g. some rivers in central 

Europe) significantly contribute to discharge of PFOS in seas and oceans. 

Several studies have been published dealing with concentrations and fate of 

PFCs in municipal waste water treatment plants (WWTPs), as these systems 

have been identified as important sources for PFOS to the aquatic and 

terrestrial environments. PFOS was not degradable in WWTPs, and PFOS 

has been found in waste water and sewage sludge from WWTPs. 

High PFC concentrations in wildlife have been reported for a wide range of 

animals globally, including in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Especially PFOS 

has been more or less found in all samples with concentrations varying from 

sub-ng/g levels to several μg/g, with birds living close to a fluorochemical plant 

as the worst case. The bioaccumulation potential of PFOS has been 

confirmed by several bioaccumulation studies in different food webs. 

Temporal trend studies have been performed on archived biologic materials, 

in general covering time spans from the 1970s-1980s to the present. The 

PFCs concentrations, especially those of PFOS, have been found to gradually 

increase up to the present years. In a study from the Canadian Arctic, a 

decrease in PFOS concentration has been observed after 2000 which was 

explained as a rapid response after the stop of PFOS production in the USA. 

However, such a decline has not been found in Greenland. 

44
4.3.1.3 Ecotoxicity 

The toxicity of PFOS has been studied in different aquatic organisms (algae, 

invertebrates, and fishes). Generally, PFOS is not toxic at the typical 

concentrations determined in the aquatic environment. However, adverse 

effects have been observed for specific cellular functions, such as mechanisms 

involving the uptake of xenobiotics. Other biological endpoints affected by 

PFOS are survival, growth, and emergence. 

A recent study of life-time exposure to PFOS showed adverse affects on the 

life-cycle (egg development, hatching, larval development, survival, 

metmorphosis, and body mass) of the damsefly Enallagma cyathigerum (Bots 

et al., 2010).

Generally, the toxicity of PFOS is species dependent and sometimes genderdependent for the same species. It is therefore difficult to perform risk 

assessment for these compounds on the basis of the few published studies. 

4.3.1.4 Human exposure and levels 

The main exposures to perfluorinated substances seem to be by direct 

consumer product exposure, through contaminated food intake, or by 

inhalation/ingestion of indoor dusts. 

In contrary to most other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), PFOS has a 

low affinity to lipids in adipose tissues but binds to proteins in cell membranes 

and accumulates in various body organs of exposed organisms, including in 

liver, kidneys, testes, and brain. 

In the blood perfluorinated chemicals are mainly bound to serum proteins, 

especially albumin. The mean half-lives in human blood were 5.4 years for 

PFOS in retired fluorochemical workers but the whole body half-life may be 

even longer since the elimination of these chemicals from the human body 

seems to be insignificant. 

Blood levels of perfluorinated chemicals have been monitored in many 

countries. In most studies PFOS has been determined in far higher 

concentrations than other PFCs. Typical average serum levels of PFOS in 

industrialized countries are 20-30 ng/mL with maximum levels less than 100 

ng/mL. Some of the highest PFOS blood levels (2-3 times the typical levels) 

in the general population were determined in industrial areas of the USA and 

China (see Figure 4-1), (Yeung et al., 2008). Such levels may be 10 times 

higher than in rural and remote areas.

45
Figure 4-1 PFOS in whole blood from China (Yeung et al. 2008). 

The average PFOS level in blood serum from Denmark was 35 ng PFOS/mL 

with a maximum concentration of 107 ng/mL (Joensen et al. 2009). 

4.3.1.5 Toxicology 

The liver is the primary target organ for PFCs. PFOS causes peroxisome 

proliferation in the rodent liver as well as induction of various enzymes 

involved in lipid and steroid metabolism. Levels of serum cholesterol, thyroid 

hormones, and testosterone are reduced, and levels of estradiol are increased. 

PFOS can rapidly and reversibly inhibit gap junction intercellular 

communication in a dose-dependent manner. Gap junction intercellular 

communication (GJIC) is the major pathway of intracellular signal 

transduction, and it is thus important for normal cell growth and function. 

Defects in this communication may lead to teratogenesis, neuropathy, 

infertility, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, cancer, and other diseases. 

Some recent studies have compared the level of PFCs in human blood with 

the occurrence of various adverse effects or diseases. 

 One study is based on data collected in the period 1999-2006 from 

about 4,000 Americans. The results show a correlation between the 

amount of PFOS and PFOA in the blood and the occurrence of 

thyroid related diseases (Melzer et al., 2010). 

 Another study showed a positive association between serum 

concentrations of PFOS (and PFOA) and cholesterol level (Nelson et 

al., 2010). 

 A further study has shown a direct correlation between serum 

concentrations of PFCs and the diagnosis ADHD (attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder) at children (Hoffmann et al., 2010). 

 Another study showed a correlation between the amount of PFOS in 

human blood and the time it takes for women to get pregnant (Fei et 

al., 2009). 

 A study showed a correlation between the amount of PFOS in human 

blood and a reduction in men’s semen quality (Joensen et al., 2009). 

The last two population studies are based on Danish cohorts and maybe the 

females difficulties to get pregnant are caused by the lower fertility of the 

males identified in the last study. 

46
4.3.1.6 Risk assessment 

The U.K. Committee on Toxicity (2006) has recommended a provisionally 

Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for PFOS of 0.3 g/kg bw/d, using an 

uncertainty factor of 100. They conclude that for some small children the 

TDI may already be exceeded. 

This assessment was based on results from animal experiments, which may be 

very arbitrary and unreliable, because of the large differences in blood halflives between rodent (days) and humans (years). The renal clearances of 

PFOS are almost insignificant in humans, contrary to a large active excretion 

in experimental animals. 

This means that PFOS in humans leave the blood mainly by redistribution to 

internal organs and not by elimination from the body as in rodents. This may 

increase the internal exposure time in critical human organs considerable. 

4.3.1.7 Conclusion 

PFOS is found widespread in nature and in animals and humans because it is 

a very persistent chemical and non-degradable in nature. Furthermore, PFOS 

and its precursors do have a tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in 

food chains. 

PFOS causes various adverse effects in humans, and for children a very 

conservative Tolerable Daily Intake of PFOS may already be exceeded. 

4.3.2 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (CAS No. 27619-97-2) 

The basic structure of 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid is very 

similar to PFOS. Both contain a fluorinated C8 alkyl chain, however, the 

alternative is not perfluorinated but has two non-fluorinated carbon atoms 

making it a polyfluorinated compound (fluorotelomer). Fluorotelomers are 

DuPont’s alternatives to PFOS. 

Figure 4-2 Alternative to PFOS as mist suppressant - 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane 

sulfonic acid (CAS 27619-97-2) 

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

H

H

S

H

H

OH

O

O

As for PFOS the perfluorinated part of 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane 

sulfonic acid is not degradable. However, the non-fluorinated part of the alkyl 

chain can be degraded. 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid is, 

therefore, expected to be degraded in nature to the further non-degradable 

perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) or 

their salts. The toxicity of PFHxA with a C6 chain is 100 to 1000 times lower 

than for PFOA with a C8

-chain (Richard Holt, DuPont, 2010). 

Chinese QSAR model results exist for persistence (half-lives) of Fumetrol® 21 

in water, sediment, soil, and air, bioconcentration factors and toxicity to fish 

(BCFs) (see Table 4-1). This data shows that Fumetrol®

 21 seems to be less 

persistent, less bioaccumulative, and less toxic compared to PFOS. 

47
For PFHxA there is an MSDS indicating it as a corrosive and toxic substance 

with R- phrases R34-37 and S-phrases S26-36/37/39-45. 

4.3.3 PFBS 

Derivatives of perfluorobutane sulfonic acid are 3M’s alternatives to PFOS. 

O F

F

F F F F F

F F

OO

S

Figure 4-3 Perfluorobutane sulfonate 

There is only information about PFBS and its potassium salt from 

unpublished laboratory test reports. These have been reviewed and evaluated 

in an Australian assessment (NICNAS).

PFBS is a strongly acidic and highly water soluble substance which has a low 

vapour pressure and is poorly adsorbed to soils and sediments and is therefore 

expected to remain in the water compartment on release into the 

environment. 

PFBS is as persistent in the environment as other perfluorinated compounds, 

and it is detected in increasing concentrations in some water bodies, including 

the North Sea. However, bioaccumulation in wildlife and humans seems to be 

much less than for PFOS. PFBS will stay mostly in the water column due to 

much higher water solubility compared with higher homologues. In a 

laboratory fish test the bioaccumulation potential for PFBS was low. 

The Australian report concludes that as use increases, for example, in its 

substitution for PFOS, levels of PFBS may build up and be distributed widely 

in the environment, given that its precursors are likely to be more volatile, yet 

structurally much similar to PFOS. 

A range of not published tests show that PFBS is not very toxic to birds, 

algae, aquatic invertebrates, fishes, and sewage micro-organisms. In a quail 

reproduction study the dietary NOAEC was 900 mg PFBS/kg ww feed 

(Newsted et al., 2008). However, PFBS was for example not tested in the 

chironomid Chironomus tentans which is shown to be 2-3 orders of magnitude 

more sensitive to the effect of PFOS than other aquatic organisms. Whether 

this would also be the case with PFBS was unclear. 

The body half-life of PFBSK in i.v. exposed monkeys is 4 days. No 

degradation was detected and urinary excretion of the chemical in these 

monkeys was a major route of elimination. In the blood high levels of binding 

of perfluorobutane sulfonate to human albumin occurred. The acute toxicity 

is low with rat oral and skin LD50 >2000 mg/kg bw. The test material was 

irritating to the eye and fulfilled the criteria for classification as irritating to 

eyes (R36). However, the chemical did not cause skin irritation and 

sensitization. In oral rat studies NOAEL values of 100-300 mg/kg bw/day 

were determined. The test material was not mutagenic in the applied bacteria 

tests. 

In general the toxicity of PFBS is >100 times lower than that of PFOS and it 

is not bioaccumulative. 

48
4.3.4 F-53 

This chemical is a perfluorinated dialkyl ether sulfonate. 

F

F

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

S

F

F

OH

O

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Figure 4-4 F-53 – a perfluorinated dialkyl ether sulfonate 

The CAS no. has not been traced. The ether group makes the chemical chain 

degradable at that point resulting in shorter chain perfluorinated derivatives. 

No data exists other than Chinese QSAR model results for persistence (halflives) in water, sediment, soil, and air, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and 

toxicity to fish exist (see Table 4-1). 

4.3.5 F-53B 

This chemical is a chlorofluorinated dialkyl ether sulfonate. 

F

F

O

F

F

F

F

F

F

S

F

F

O

O

O

Cl

F

F

F

F

F

F

K

+

Figure 4-5 F-53B – a chlorofluorinated dialkyl ether sulfonate 

The CAS no. has not been traced. The ether group and the chlorine 

substitution make the chemical chain more degradable resulting in shorter 

chain derivatives. 

Chinese QSAR model results for persistence (half-lives) in water, sediment, 

soil, and air, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and toxicity to fish exist (see 

Table 4-1). 

4.3.6 Non-fluoro alternative 

No information about the chemical substances in TIB Suract CR-H from 

TIB Chemicals was available, as this is confidential. 

4.3.7 Comparison 

The adverse effects of PFOS have been extensively studied and much more 

data exists on this chemical than on the available alternatives. 

In general, the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of the perfluorinated 

chemicals increase with the length of the alkyl chain. PFCs with a fluorinated 

alkyl chain length of six (C6

) and below are not considered to be very 

accumulative. This means that the fluorinated PFOS alternatives with a 

shorter chain than PFOS will be less persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 

than PFOS, and thus an improvement. The available data is insufficient for 

prioritisation among the fluorinated alternatives. In Table 4-1 a few data is 

shown. 

49
Table 4-1 Data on PFOS and alternatives 

Chemical CAS no. Log K Persistence/half-lives (days) Bioaccumulation Toxicity ow 

Water Sediment Air Soil BCF BMF Rat NOAEL 

mg/kg bw/d 

ECO 

96 hr LC50 

mg/l (fish) 

Ref 

POP 

criteria 

>5 >60 >180 >180 >5000 

PFOS 1763-23-1 

PFOS K 

salt 

2795-39-3 1 >15000 >2 2800 (fish)22-160 0.1 4.7 

Lepomis 

macrochirus 

(fathead 

minnow) 

PFOS risk 

profile 

2006 

PFOS 

NH4 salt 

29081-56-9 85 

Lepomis 

macrochirus 

(fathead 

minnow) 

PFOS DEA 

salt 

70225-14-8 31 

Lepomis 

macrochirus 

(fathead 

minnow) 

3M, 1999 

PFOS TEA 

salt 

56773-42-3 

PFBS 29420-49-

3 

PFBS K 

salt 

29420-43-3 <1 1000 1900 (fathead 

minnow) 

Richard 

Holt, 

Dupont, 

2010 

FC-53* 180 1600 180 360 56 1 (fish) 

FC-53B* 180 1600 180 360 56 0.56 (fish) 

Fumetrol 

21* 

27619-97-2 180 1600 12 360 3.2 10 (fish) 

Jun 

Huang, 

2010 

PFHxA 307-24-4 >300 Richard 

Holt, 

Dupont, 

2010 

* Data based on Chinese QSAR models 

4.3.8 Conclusion 

Based on the information above and the economic limitations of the project, it 

was decided to further investigate the following alternatives that can be used 

for non-decorative hard chrome plating: 

 The fluorinated alternative Fumetrol®

 21 from Atotech, which is 

based on 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (CAS No. 

27619-97-2). 

 The fluor-free alternative TIB Suract CR-H from TIB Chemicals 

(but no information about the chemical substance, as this is 

confidential). 

 Physical alternative – use of teflon balls. 

These alternatives were chosen for the following reasons: 

 The Fumetrol®

 21 alternative contains a known compound 

(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS No. 27619-97-

2)), and the project group together with the Danish EPA found it 

essential to test and illustrate that a known fluorinated non-PFOS 

alternative can be used as an alternative to non-decorative hard 

chrome plating. Furthermore, PFCs with a fluorinated alkyl chain 

length of six (C6

) (which Fumetrol® 21 has) and below is not 

considered to be very accumulative. This means that Fumetrol®

 21 

50
 The non-fluorinated alternative TIB Suract CR-H was chosen as one 

of two non-fluorinated alternatives that claim to be working as mist 

suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating as well. 

 Finally, the use of a physical solution instead of or in combination with 

a chemical alternative was chosen as well in order to investigate other 

alternative possibilities with no or low content of fluorine. 

51
52
5 Testing of alternatives to PFOS 

(laboratory scale) (IPU) 

5.1 Testing in the laboratory (IPU) 

Two chemical and one mechanical alternative have been tested on laboratory 

scale. The chemical alternatives are Fumetrol®

 21 (a fluorochemical nonPFOS product by Atotech) and a non-fluoro-product by TIB called Suract 

CRH. The mechanical alternative is coverage of the electrolyte surface with 

PTFE balls. 

5.1.1 Experimental procedure 

A reference chromium electrolyte was prepared containing 300 g/L CrO3 and 3 g/l 

H2SO4. A sketch of the laboratory reference setup is illustrated in 

Figure 5-1. The cell is made of doubled walled glass; the outer space is 

flushed with water heated by a thermostat to 55°C. The internal diameter is 

120 mm, filled with 1.2 liter chromium electrolyte. An anode of lead metal is 

used (dimensions 50 x 4x 200 mm3

), and the cathode is made of steel with an 

initial diameter of 5 mm. A glass filter is placed 230 mm above the bath 

surface, enabling collection of chromium mist. 

Various PFOS and PFOS alternatives were added to this reference electrolyte 

as described below. All depositions were running for 19 hours at a current 

density of 52 A/dm2

, corresponding to a current density per electrolyte surface 

area of 700 A/m2

. 

The reference setup includes an air inlet. If no air is flushed through the inlet 

the air convection is very low in the cell as the dense glass filter prevents this. 

If air is flushed in close to the electrolyte surface this will promote air 

exhausting, simulating real plating conditions. Most of the experiments were 

carried out with and without airflow through the air inlet. 

Analyses for Cr6+ were subsequently performed by measurements of absorbed 

chromium on the fibre glass filter by spectrophotometrical analysis. For the 

spectrophotometrical analysis, a Shimadzu UVmini-1240 equipment is used, 

with 1,5-diphenylcarbazide as an indicator and the absorbance was measured 

with a wavelength of 542 nm. 

Depositions in the following systems were carried out: 

 Reference electrolyte (as used at a.h. nichro Haardchrom) without 

mist suppressant 

 Reference electrolyte with 100 massive PTFE balls 

 Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol®

 21 

 Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol®

 21 + 100 massive PTFE balls 

 Reference electrolyte with TIB Suract CRH 

 Reference electrolyte with PFOS 

These are described in more details below. 

53
Reference electrolyte with 100 massive PTFE balls: 

100 massive PTFE balls with diameters of 5/8 inches (15.9 mm) were placed 

on a titanium grid and submerged into the reference electrolyte, resulting in 

two layers of balls – one layer below the electrolyte surface and one above. 

Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol®

 21: 

5 ml/l Fumetrol®

 21 were added to the reference electrolyte. 

Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol® 21 + 100 PTFE balls: 

100 massive PTFE balls with diameters of 5/8 inches (15.9 mm) were placed 

on a titanium grid and submerged into the reference electrolyte with addition 

of 5 ml/l Fumetrol®

 21, resulting in two layers of balls - one layer below the 

electrolyte surface and one above. 

A titanium grid was used because only massive PTFE balls were commercially 

available. These are, however, too dense and would sink to the bottom. 

Therefore, a titanium grid was applied in order to simulate PTFE coated balls 

floating on the surface. 

Reference electrolyte with TIB Suract CRH: 

TIB Suract CRH was added to the reference electrolyte. This experiment was 

performed both with and without continuous addition of the additive. 1 ml/l 

TIB Suract CRH was added in the experiment without continuous addition; 

in the experiment with continuous deposition 1 ml/l was added initially; 

subsequently 0.1 ml/l per hour, according to the suggestions from the 

datasheet of the product. Analysis for Cr6+ was subsequently performed by 

measurements of absorbed chromium on the fibre glass filter by 

spectrophotometrical analysis as described above. 

Reference electrolyte with PFOS: 

A PFOS containing commercial chromium electrolyte was tested in a 

comparable way as the above mentioned experiments. This electrolyte 

contained 260 g/l CrO3 and 1.9 g/l H2SO4, a commercial PFOS (Fumetrol®

14016) product from Atotech, and a HEEF 25 product containing an 

alternative catalyst to H2SO4 (possibly a methane disulfonate derivate). 

Analysis for Cr6+ was subsequently performed by measurements of absorbed 

chromium on the fibre glass filter by spectrophotometrical analysis as 

described above. 

 

16 From this point forward the PFOS containing chemical Fumetrol® 140 is for 

simplicity reasons just named “PFOS”.

54
Figure 5-1: Schematic illustration of the electrochemical cell. 

5.1.2 Results 

The results of the analysis for Cr6+ (chromium-VI) are given in Table 5-1 and 

Table 5-2. 

The commercial PFOS product results in very effective reduction of the Cr6+

emission. 

The results evidently show that the Cr6+ emission in a system with simulated 

exhausting is significantly higher than in a system with very low convection of 

air. This shows that the Cr6+ emission can be reduced radically by avoiding air 

convection. 

Addition of Fumetrol and TIB Suract results in some reduction of the Cr6+

emission. In the experiment with continuous addition of TIB Suract, the 

additions followed the suggestions of the datasheet of the product, despite that 

the applied additions were not sufficient to prevent mist formation. 

Addition of Fumetrol®

 21 results in reduction of the Cr6+ emission. In the case 

of simulated exhausting, Fumetrol®

 21 reduces the Cr6+ emission more than 

the additions of TIB Suract and PTFE balls. 

Additions of PTFE balls results in increased Cr6+ emission, also when used in 

combination with addition of Fumetrol. 

Table 5-1: Cr6+ emission from experiments performed without airflow. 

Electrolyte Cr6+ emission [ug/(glass filter x 19h)] 

Reference electrolyte 110 

Reference electrolyte and PTFE balls 136 

Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol® 21 72 

Reference electrolyte with TIB Suract CRH 63** 

Commercial electrolyte with PFOS 1.5 

Table 5-2: Cr6+ emission from experiments performed with airflow (simulated 

exhaustion): 

Electrolyte Cr6+ emission [ug/(glass filter x 19h)] 

Reference electrolyte 71,100 

Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol® 21 and PTFE 

balls 

732 

Reference electrolyte with Fumetrol® 21 502 

Reference electrolyte with TIB Suract CRH 850* / 22,500** 

Commercial electrolyte with PFOS Not measured 

* Continuous additions of TIB Suract CRH were applied 

** No continuous additions of TIB Suract CRH were applied 

Electrode

Chromium electrolyte 

Electrode 

Container with glassfilter Air inlet

Heating water 

55
5.1.3 Discussion 

TIB Suract requires very regular additions in order to maintain the reduction 

in Cr6+ emission. However, when regular additions are added, it seems to be a 

mist suppressant that can reduce Cr6+ emissions considerably – although not 

as effective as Fumetrol®

 21 (the fluorinated alternative). The experiments 

show that it is difficult to predict the correct dosing of the additive. In case of 

breakdown of an addition system the consequences can be severe and 

supervision of the system would be required. Estimated costs of the use of an 

automatic addition system together with supervision overnight time are 

expected to be 1,000 DKK per day (134 EUR) for supervision including log 

registration. An automatic addition system could therefore result in expenses 

of approximately 350,000 DKK per year (47,000 EUR) plus expenses of 

establishment of the supervision equipment (estimation from a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom/Surfcoat). Use of TIB Suract might be possible in a highly 

automated mass production of chrome-plated products but for the purpose of 

the production at a.h. nichro Haardchrom (i.e. specialized products in few 

numbers, frequently varying production), such a system will be too uncertain 

to use, at least on the basis of the results on lab-scale. 

Two layers of PTFE balls as an alternative to PFOS resulted in increased Cr6+

emission. The reason for this could be that the decreased free surface area of 

the electrolyte results in increased velocity of the chrome mist. This 

corresponds to practical experience of plates, related to plating inside for 

example a tube which will result in increased mist development locally at the 

end of the tube. Polypropylene balls, presently used during plating for the 

purpose of lowering heat loss and evaporation (of water), do not result in such 

locally increased mist formation if less than one layer of balls is used, i.e. the 

balls do not cover the entire surface (see Figure 1.1). 

Additions of Fumetrol®

 21 result in reduction of the Cr6+ emission. In the case 

of simulated exhausting, Fumetrol®

 21 reduces the Cr6+ emission more than 

the additions of TIB Suract and PTFE balls. 

The results show that the Cr6+ emission can be reduced radically by avoiding 

air convection. This method could be a suitable alternative to PFOS in mass 

production systems. However, in plating system for frequently varying 

productions, it will be more difficult to establish a closed (mechanical) system 

because of the flexibility required of such systems. Such implementations 

would require a significant redesign of the production line. Based on the 

laboratory experiments performed in the present project, it is therefore 

considered to be very difficult to design large scale experiments that prevent 

air convection and this alternative – even though being very promising - was 

therefore not considered a practical solution for the non-automated hard 

chromium process used at the participating company a.h. nichro Haardchrom 

A/S. However, the very significant reduction of Cr6+ emission, when no 

ventilation is applied, inspires for further evaluations on possible physical 

alternatives for avoiding transportation of aerosol from the surface which 

could be used in plating systems for frequently varying productions. The 

project group therefore recommends that this aspect should be investigated 

further as it could be a very interesting alternative to the use of chemical mist 

suppressants. 

For the above reasons, Fumetrol®

 21 appears to be the most promising 

alternative to PFOS in plating systems for frequently varying productions. It 

56
was therefore decided to perform the large scale testing with Fumetrol®

 21 as 

an alternative to PFOS. Fumetrol®

 21 was the only alternative tested in large 

scale due to the economic frame of the project. 

 

 

57
58
6 Testing in large scale 

Large scale testing of the effect of Fumetrol® 21 as an alternative to PFOS was 

carried out at the hard chrome plating plant a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S in 

Hvidovre, Denmark. 

The primary purpose of the test was to see if the Fumetrol®

 21 could be used 

as an alternative to PFOS as mist suppressing agent with similar abilities to 

suppress chromium-(VI) emissions from the chrome bath. 

 

6.1 Planning of large scale testing 

In order to be able to compare the effectiveness of Fumetrol®

 21 to the 

effectiveness of PFOS, experiments of comparable conditions were carried 

out combined with measurement of chromium emission in both cases. 

Fumetrol®

 21 (Atotech) containing the non-PFOS alternative – a 

polyfluorinated compound 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (CAS 

no. 27619-97-2) - was therefore tested against an existing PFOS product 

(Fumetrol®

 140 (Atotech) containing a PFOS ammonium salt)17. 

The following aspects were discussed when planning the large scale testing in 

order to be able to fulfil the purpose of comparing Fumetrol®

 21 to PFOS as a 

mist suppressing agent: 

 Use of a reference measurement without mist suppressant 

 Size of chrome bath 

 Electrical charge of the chrome bath 

 Identical measurements of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 

 Dosage of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 to the chrome bath 

 Duration and number of measurements 

 Measurement of total chromium emissions 

 Technical issues regarding the measurements 

These aspects are discussed in more details below. 

6.1.1 Use of a reference measurement without mist suppressant 

Even though the purpose of the measurements primarily was to see if 

Fumetrol®

 21 could work as well as PFOS as a mist suppressant for nondecorative hard chrome plating, it is also relevant to perform a measurement 

without mist suppressant as a reference to see how large the emission of 

chromium would be without the use of any mist suppressant. In this way we 

could get an idea of how well both PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 work as a mist 

suppressant compared to the reference: no mist suppressant. 

It was decided to perform this reference measurement as the first thing during 

the test period when only the chromium bath was prepared. After the 

 

17 The PFOS containing chemical Fumetrol®

 140 is for simplicity reasons just named 

“PFOS” in this report.

59
measurement one of the mist suppressants could be added and the 

measurement could continue for this mist suppressant. 

6.1.2 Size of chrome bath 

In order to be able to compare PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 as mist suppressants 

it would be necessary to use two new chrome baths in order to avoid any left 

over or contamination of PFOS in the Fumetrol®

 21 bath or the other way 

around. 

Normally, a.h. nichro Haardchrom A/S only changes the chromium chemicals 

in the chrome bath once every 6 to 10 years as the change of the chrome bath 

is a very high-priced activity. Not only, the chromium salt chemicals for the 

chrome bath are costly but the used chrome bath chemicals that are replaced 

must be disposed of as chemical waste which is also costly. 

It was therefore decided, in order to reduce the costs of the large scale testing, 

to use a small bath of 110 liters. This chrome bath functions just like the 

larger chrome baths and we would be able to control the electrical charge 

(ampere hours), the exhaust etc. just like the ordinary larger chrome baths 

used at a.h. nichro Haardchrom. 

The test installation was therefore built at a.h. nichro Haardchrom around this 

110 liters chrome bath, i.e. a miniature chrome plating bath with a hood and a 

vertical ventilation duct in which the sampling point was placed. 

Details of the test installations, as well as drawings of the test installation, can 

be found in Appendix A. 

6.1.3 Electrical charge of the chrome bath 

It was decided to use a high electrical charge in the chrome bath in order to 

“stress test” the mist suppressant agent under the worst possible conditions. 

Under such conditions it was expected that the mist suppressant agent would 

loose its effect after a few days. 

Details about the used electrical charge can be found in Appendix A. 

6.1.4 Identical measurements of PFOS and Fumetrol® 21 

The primary purpose of the test was to see if the Fumetrol®

 21 could be used 

as an alternative to PFOS as mist suppressing agent with similar abilities to 

suppress chromium emissions from the chrome bath. 

It was therefore decided that the measurements performed on PFOS and on 

the alternative Fumetrol®

 21 should be identical. I.e. the exact same 

measurements should be performed on the same days after start up of the 

testing (= make-up of the chrome bath with mist suppressant). This would 

make it possible to compare the effect of Fumetrol®

 21 compared to PFOS. 

6.1.5 Dosage of PFOS and Fumetrol® 21 to the chrome bath 

In order to test if Fumetrol®

 21 works as well as PFOS it is of course also 

important to use the same concentration of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 in the 

chrome bath. However, the two mist suppressant products PFOS and 

Fumetrol®

 21 contain different amounts of the active ingredient. On the 

60
Material Safety Data Sheet of PFOS (Fumetrol®

 140) it is stated that the 

content of PFOS is 5-10% (w/w), and similarly it is stated on the Material 

Safety Data Sheet of Fumetrol®

 21 that the content of the polyfluorosulfonic 

acid is 1-2.5% (w/w). This means that similar amounts of PFOS and 

Fumetrol®

 21 added to the chrome bath would result in different 

concentrations of the active mist suppressant ingredients in the two cases. 

It was decided to use the make-up concentrations as suggested in the technical 

data sheet for PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 in order to test the recommended 

make-up concentration for the two mist suppressants. 

This would result in an addition of Fumetrol®

 21 in the double amount 

compared to PFOS for make-up of the chrome bath. However, this also 

makes sense as PFOS according to the Material Safety Data Sheets seems to 

be twice as concentrated as Fumetrol®

 21. 

For further make-up details of the mist suppressants in the chrome baths, see 

Appendix A. 

6.1.6 Duration and number of measurements 

The duration of the different measurements was set at 24 hours in order to 

ensure a good average value with plenty of material (chromium) for analysis. 

The duration of the reference measurement was set at 12 hours because it was 

expected that the chromium emission would be very high with no mist 

suppressant available to lower the chromium emissions. 12 hours should 

therefore be enough time to ensure a good average value but on the other 

hand hopefully not too long a time frame to risk clogging of the filter used for 

measuring. Clogging of the filter could happen if the chromium emissions 

were too high. 

The number of measurements was primarily determined by the economic 

conditions of this project. However, it was decided to include measurements 

over a period of at least 10 days in order to get an idea of when the mist 

suppressant agent would loose its effect. In all, it was decided to carry out 11 

measurements; one reference measurements and 5 measurements for each of 

the mist suppressants. 

It was furthermore decided that the 5 measurements should be carried out on 

the exact same time after make-up of the chrome bath with mist suppressant. 

I.e. the measurements were decided to be carried out on day 1, day 3, day 7, 

day 10, and day 14 of the make-up of the chrome bath (i.e. addition of mist 

suppressing agent). The duration of the measurement period and the number 

of days between the measurements were decided based on the experiences of 

a.h. nichro Haardchrom and their expectations of how long the mist 

suppressant would work under the set conditions. 

6.1.7 Measurement of total chromium emissions 

Even though it is the emission of chromium-(VI) that is most relevant, it was 

decided to measure the total chromium emissions (i.e. both chromium-(VI) 

and chromium-(III)) because it is easier to measure compared to 

measurement of chromium-(VI). 

61
Normally, the chrome bath will contain more than 90% chromium-(VI) so the 

relationship between the amount of chromium-(VI) and chromium-(III) will 

be proportional. 

6.1.8 Technical issues regarding the measurements 

It was decided to use the same technical conditions for all three tests carried 

out, i.e. reference measurement without mist suppressant, measurements with 

PFOS as mist suppressant, and measurements with Fumetrol®

 21 as mist 

suppressant. This should of course ensure that the measurements could be 

compared with each other. 

This means that the following technical conditions were controlled and kept at 

the same level during the entire testing period: 

 Electrical charge 

 Exhaust velocity (flow rate) 

 The subjects to be chrome-plated 

 The reference electrolyte bath (only difference was the added mist 

suppressant). The reference electrolyte bath used was identical to the 

electrolyte bath usually used at a.h. nichro Haardchrom. 

The subjects to be chrome-plated were identical for both testing of PFOS and 

Fumetrol®

 21. The subjects were kept in the chrome bath during the entire 

testing period (of 14 days) for each mist suppressant, i.e. no change of 

subjects to be chrome plated during the entire testing period for both mist 

suppressants. This ensures identical conditions for the two test periods. 

It was decided to use a chrome bath topped with a hood and a vertical 

ventilation duct in which the sampling point should be placed. The sampling 

point was planned to be placed in a straight length of the duct in order to fulfil 

the conditions in Chapter 6 “Measurement section and measurement site” in 

EN 15259:2007 “Air quality. Measurement of stationary source emissions. 

Requirements for measurement sections and sites and for the measurement, 

objective, plan and report.” 

Details can be found in Appendix A. 

6.2 Experimental procedure 

The experimental procedure is described in details and illustrated in 

Appendix A and is therefore only briefly described in this section. 

A hard chrome electrolyte was prepared in a 110 liter chamber. The test 

installation was a purpose built miniature chrome plating bath with a hood 

and a vertical ventilation duct in which the sampling point was placed. 

Experiments were carried out in a reference electrolyte without mist 

suppressant and in the reference electrolyte with PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21, 

respectively. 

The following test programme was carried out (see Table 6-1). 

62
Table 6-1 Test program for large scale testing at a.h. nichro Haardchrom 

Day Addition of mist 

suppressant 

Reference PFOS 

(Fumetrol® 

140) 

Comments 

0 - 12 hours - Start up of chrome bath. Subjects to be chrome-plated were 

installed in the chrome bath. Reference measurement was 

carried out on the reference electrolyte chrome bath with no 

mist suppressant. Chrome-plating of products was carried out, 

i.e. high emissions of chromium were expected. 

1 yes - 24 hours PFOS was added to the reference electrolyte chrome bath and 

measurement was carried out. 

3 - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

7 yes - 24 hours Extra PFOS was added to the chrome bath as the mist 

suppressing agent no longer was active (visible findings). This 

was entirely based on the experiences of a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom as chromium emissions were visible and the mist 

suppressant did not produce the foamy layer as when working 

effectively. The PFOS was added in the morning on day 7, just 

before the measurement on day 7 was set up. The addition of 

PFOS was carried out to ensure that the last three 

measurements would not be carried out on a bath with a nonworking mist suppressant agent. 

10 - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

14 - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

Two weeks of pause between measurements to prepare a new 

reference electrolyte chrome bath for Fumetrol® 21 

measurements. The subjects to be chrome-plated were 

replaced with new identical subjects. 

Day* Addition of mist 

suppressant 

Reference Fumetrol® 

21 

Comments 

1 (29) yes - 24 hours Start up of new chrome bath with new mist suppressant and 

new identical subjects to be chrome plated. The same 

procedure as for PFOS testing was carried out, i.e. Fumetrol®

21 was added to the reference electrolyte chrome bath and 

measurement of chromium emissions was carried out. 

3 (31) - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

As for the PFOS testing period, extra Fumetrol® 21 was added 

on day 7 of the testing period as well. This was done 

deliberately in order to add new mist suppressant agent on the 

same time of the testing period. However, the visual inspection 

showed that the mist suppressant layer of Fumetrol® 21 also 

had stopped working at about the same day of the test period 

as PFOS did. It would therefore have been necessary to add 

Fumetrol® 21 anyhow. Fumetrol® 21 was added in the morning 

on day 7, just before the measurement on day 7 was set up 

7 (35) yes - 24 hours 

10 (38) - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

14 (42) - - 24 hours Measurement was carried out. 

* Day 1 (29) indicates that it is the first day of Fumetrol® 21 testing, but day 29 since start up of the large scale testing. 

 

The following technical conditions were controlled and kept at the same level 

during the entire testing period (testing of reference and the two mist 

suppressants): 

 Electrical charge 

 Exhaust velocity (flow rate) 

 The subjects to be chrome-plated 

 The reference electrolyte bath (only difference was the added mist 

suppressant). The reference electrolyte bath used was identical to the 

electrolyte bath usually used at a.h. nichro Haardchrom. 

PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 were added to the reference electrolyte according to 

the make-up prescriptions in their respective technical data sheets. However, 

based on the experience of a.h. nichro Haardchrom, the make-up amount of 

both PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 was raised by 50% in both cases compared to 

the make-up concentration according to the data sheets. The reason for this 

raise in concentration was that a.h. nichro Haardchrom has experienced that 

63
this raise in make-up concentration is necessary in order to get the best 

working mist suppressant layer in a new chrome bath. However, both the 

concentration of PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21 was raised, hence still being 

comparable amounts. 

6.3 Results 

The results of the chromium emission measurements are presented in Table 

6-2 below. 

Table 6-2 Test results – OBS i tabellen er der ikke ® ved Fuemetrol® 21 

Fumetrol 140 (PFOS)

Parameter Unit Reference Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

Date dd-mm-yy 08/11/2010 09/11/2010 11/11/2010 15/11/2010 18/11/2010 22/11/2010

Measuring period hh:mm 15:03 - 09:50 10:23 - 09:40 09:15 - 09:30 09:31 - 09:26 10:15 - 09:56 09:47 - 09:20

Addition of PFOS before measurement start * Liter/m2 - 1.8 - 1.8 - -

Addition of PFOS before measurement start * Liter/m3 - 3.6 - 3.6 - -

Days after addition days -13148

Flow and temperature

Temperature °C 20 20 20 20 20 20

Flowrate m3(s,d)/h 180 180 180 180 180 180

Flowrate, operating conditions m3/h 200 200 200 200 200 200

Concentrations

Particles / mist mg/m3(s,d) 18 0.024 0.021 0.088 0.020 0.018

Particles / mist % of reference - 0.13 0.12 0.49 0.11 0.10

Cr mg/m3(s,d) 12 0.027 0.30 0.20 0.011 0.046

Cr % of reference - 0.23 2.50 1.67 0.09 0.38

Emissions

Particles / mist mg/h 3,300 4.3 3.9 16 3.6 3.2

Cr mg/h 2,200 5.0 56 36 2.0 8.3

Fumetrol 21 (non-PFOS)

Parameter Unit - Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

Date dd-mm-yy - 30/11/2010 02/12/2010 06/12/2010 09/12/2010 13/12/2010

Measuring period hh:mm 10:30 - 10:07 09:50 - 08:45 09:30 - 09:40 10:02 - 09:17 09:40 - 10:03

Addition of Fuemetrol 21 before measurement start Liter/m2 - 3.7 - 1.8 - -

Addition of Fuemetrol 21 before measurement start Liter/m3 7.2 3.6

Days after addition days -13148

Flow and temperature

Temperature °C 20 20 20 20 20

Flowrate m3(s,d)/h 180 180 180 180 180

Flowrate, operating conditions m3/h 200 200 200 200 200

Concentrations

Particles / mist mg/m3(s,d) 0.037 0.034 0.030 0.025 0.030

Particles / mist % of PFOS 154 162 34 125 167

Particles / mist % of reference 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.17

Cr mg/m3(s,d) - 0.013 0.016 0.089 0.047 0.016

Cr % of PFOS - 48 5 45 427 35

Cr % of reference - 0.11 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.13

Emissions

Particles / mist mg/h 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.5 5.5

Cr mg/h 2.4 2.9 16 8.6 2.9

(s,d) indicates dry gas at standard conditions (0°C, 101,3 kPa)

* means "not included in accreditation no. 51"

The results show that the emissions of chromium (total chromium, i.e. both 

Cr6+ and Cr3+) are at somewhat the same level on all five days of 

measurement. The chromium emissions when using Fumetrol®

 21 as mist 

suppressant are between 5 and 427% of the corresponding chromium 

64
emissions when using PFOS. In 4 out of 5 measurements the chromium 

emissions when using Fumetrol®

 21 are below the chromium emissions when 

using PFOS (between 5 and 48%). The uncertainty of the chromium 

measurements is about 10%. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot explain the 

much higher chromium emissions in sample no. 4 for Fumetrol®

 21 compared 

to PFOS. However, when looking closer at the emissions in Table 6-2, it can 

be seen that the chromium emissions are rather stable when using Fumetrol®

21. The large difference of 427% between the chromium emissions when 

using Fumetrol®

 21 compared to the use of PFOS is due to the fact that the 

chromium emissions of the similar sample no. 4 for some reason are much 

lower than the chromium emissions in the other PFOS samples. In other 

words, it is not possible to detect a significant difference between PFOS and 

Fumetrol®

 21. 

The durability of the mist suppressants is very good. The test does not show 

any significant decline in the effect for up to 8 days for both mist 

suppressants. 

Both mist suppressants show a good effect on preventing chromium emissions 

from the chrome bath. On average less than 1 % of the mist formation without 

mist suppressants has been measured. There seems to be a tendency for 

Fumetrol®

 21 to be slightly better than PFOS but it is not conclusive. 

However, when taken the amount of “active ingredient” added during the 

testing into account, the picture is a bit different (see Figure 6-1). The 

calculations below show that the Fumetrol®

 21 chemical is not as concentrated 

as the PFOS chemical. PFOS has been added during the testing in a 

concentration that is about 3 times higher than the active ingredient of 

Fumetrol®

 21. Hence, it seems that Fumetrol® 21 is performing slightly better 

than PFOS as a chromium mist suppressant. 

Figure 6-1 Amount of ”active ingredient” used in the tests 

PFOS 

PFOS (Fumetrol® 140) contains according to the MSDS 5-10% PFOS (“active ingredient”). 

PFOS has according to the MSDS a density of 1.000 to 1.025 g/cm3

. A value of 1.000 g/cm3 is 

assumed in the calculations. 

PFOS was added in a total amount of 7.2 liter/m3

, i.e. between 0.36 and 0.72 liter/m3 of “active 

ingredient”. 

Fumetrol® 21 

Fumetrol® 21 contains according to the MSDS 1-2.5% “active ingredient”. 

Fumetrol® 21 has according to the MSDS a density of 0.995 to 1.021 g/cm3

. A value of 1.000 

g/cm3

 is assumed in the calculations. 

Fumetrol® 21 was added in a total amount of 10.8 liter/m3

, i.e. between 0.108 and 0.27 liter/m3

of “active ingredient”. 

This means that there has been added about 2.7 - 3.3, i.e. about 3 times less “active ingredient” 

of Fumetrol® 21 compared to PFOS. 

The experience from a.h. nichro Haardchrom during the testing period was 

that there did not seem to be any large differences in the effect of PFOS and 

Fumetrol®

 21 as mist suppressants. Both mist suppressants were very similar 

in their effectiveness and their appearance: 

 The foamy layer on the top of the chrome bath was visually identical 

over the entire testing period. 

 The time from make-up of the bath to the mist suppressant effect 

wearing off was the same for both PFOS and Fumetrol®

 21. In both 

cases, additional mist suppressant was added on day 7 of the testing 

65
period and in both cases the foam layer was disappearing and it was 

possible to see chromium emissions from the bath. 

The Danish “end of pipe” emission limit value for hexavalent chromium is 

0.25 mg/m3. This limit value is exceeded only in sample 2 of the PFOS 

measurements (0.30 mg/m3). The rest of the measurements (excluding the 

reference measurement) are below this emission limit value. All measurements 

have been performed upstream from the cyclone, i.e. representing emission 

values without exhaust devices. It is therefore highly probable that 

concentrations measured in the “end of pipe” downstream from the cyclone 

will be much lower than the Danish emission limit value. 

As an overall conclusion, Fumetrol®

 21 can replace PFOS without any risk of 

increasing the mist formation. With addition of the applied amounts of mist 

suppressants the durability of both suppressants is at least one week under the 

used “stressing” conditions. 

The overall conclusion from a.h. nichro Haardchrom was also that Fumetrol®

21 can replace PFOS as a mist suppressant. a.h. nichro Haardchrom had on 

the basis of the large scale testing experiences no problems with a change in 

mist suppressants and therefore plans to use Fumetrol®

 21 as mist suppressant 

in the future. 

6.4 Economic considerations 

There are three aspects of interest regarding the economic considerations: 

 The direct difference in price for the two mist suppressants. 

 The direct difference in price regarding disposal of chemical waste. 

 Any indirect economic expenses needed for changing from PFOS to 

the alternative mist suppressant. 

Currently, the costs of the tested Fumetrol products are 297 DKK per liter for 

Fumetrol®

 21 and 601 DKK per liter for Fumetrol® 140 (PFOS). As 

mentioned in Figure 6-1 Fumetrol®

 21 contains 1-2.5% “active ingredient” 

according to the MSDS, and PFOS (Fumetrol®

 140) contains 5-10% PFOS 

(“active ingredient”) according to the MSDS. This means that the price of 

“active ingredient” for the two products can be estimated to be 12-30 DKK 

per ml “active ingredient” in Fumetrol®

 21 and 6-12 DKK per ml “active 

ingredient” in Fumetrol®

 140 (PFOS). 

During the test period of two weeks Fumetrol 21®

 was added in a total 

amount of 10.8 liter/m3

, i.e. between 0.108 and 0.27 liter/m3 of “active 

ingredient” and PFOS was added in a total amount of 7.2 liter/m3

, i.e. 

between 0.36 and 0.72 liter/m3

 of “active ingredient”. Therefore, the expenses 

of the added products over the test period were 3,208 DKK per m3

 for 

Fumetrol®

 21 and 4,327 DKK per m3 for Fumetrol® 140 (PFOS). As it is 

concluded in section 6.3 that Fumetrol®

 21 can replace PFOS as a mist 

suppressant, by using the above mentioned amounts of additions, the use of 

Fumetrol®

 21 turns out to be cheaper than the use of Fumetrol® 140 (PFOS). 

The project group has assessed that the difference in price regarding disposal 

of the chemical waste when using PFOS and the alternative mist suppressant 

Fumetrol®

 21 would be close to zero. The large scale testing showed that more 

Fumetrol®

 21 was added (due to the alternative being less concentrated): 10.8 

66
liter/m3

 compared to 7.2 liter/m3 PFOS. About 33% more Fumetrol ® 21 was 

therefore added compared to PFOS. This could influence the cost regarding 

disposal of chemical waste once the chrome bath is emptied. On the other 

hand, the mist suppressant “disappears”, i.e. is degraded and/or evaporated 

during use, therefore the difference may not be known when it comes to 

disposal of the chrome bath. 

The indirect economic expenses needed for changing from PFOS to the 

alternative mist suppressant Fumetrol®

 21 are assessed to be zero. The reason 

for this is that the alternative mist suppressant can be directly added to the 

chrome bath instead of PFOS when it is visible that the effect of PFOS is at a 

minimum, i.e. the existing PFOS in the chrome bath has been degraded. The 

polyfluorinated chemical of the alternative mist suppressant is chemically 

close to the same structure as PFOS and therefore it should not cause any 

problems to add the new alternative mist suppressant when a small amount of 

PFOS is still present in the chrome bath. 

This aspect is important economically as a.h. nichro Haardchrom assesses 

that it will cost about 500,000 DKK (66,600 EUR) to replace the chromium 

chemicals in one of their large chrome baths (costs of the chromium 

chemicals and cost of disposal of the chemical waste), and for the entire 

company about 1.5 million DKK (200,000 EUR). Emptying and replacing 

the chemicals of the chrome bath is therefore only done when absolutely 

necessary, i.e. once every 6-10 years depending on the content of metal 

contamination (primarily cupper and iron from the mountings). 

67
68
7 Assessment of an alternative to 

PFOS for hard chrome plating 

7.1 Effectiveness 

The large scale testing of PFOS and the alternative 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) demonstrated that both mist 

suppressants show a good effect on preventing chromium emissions from the 

chrome bath. On average less than 1% (between 0.11% and 0.74%) of the 

chromium emissions without mist suppressants (reference measurement) was 

measured when the alternative mist suppressing agent was tested. 

The durability of the alternative mist suppressants was very good. The test 

did not show any significant decline in the effect for up to 8 days for both mist 

suppressants (additional mist suppressant was, however, added for both mist 

suppressants during the testing period of 14 days). 

The experiences of a.h. nichro Haardchrom were that the alternative mist 

suppressing agent 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

21) showed similar mist suppressing effect and durability when comparing 

with PFOS under the same conditions. 

When comparing the results from the large scale tests with the results from 

the laboratory tests similar trends are observed. Laboratory experiments 

without airflow and with PFOS showed a reduction of chromium emission to 

1.4%, laboratory experiments with airflow and with Fumetrol®

 21 showed a 

reduction of chromium emission to 0,7%. However, the laboratory 

experiments without airflow and Fumetrol®

 21 show a surprisingly low 

reduction of chromium emission to only 65% (see Table 5-1). In order to 

evaluate this inconsistence repeated measurements should be carried out to 

establish whether this can be due to a measurements error. Despite this 

inconsistency the performed laboratory tests and results appear to be very 

indicative for the results of large scale tests. 

7.2 Economy 

As described in section 6.4, the expenses of the added products during the 

test period were 3,208 DKK per m3

 for Fumetrol® 21 and 4,327 DKK per m3

for Fumetrol®

 140 (PFOS). During the 14 days’ testing period, the price per 

day is therefore 229 DKK per m3

 for Fumetrol® 21 and 309 DKK per m3 for 

PFOS. 

The difference in the costs of PFOS compared with the alternative 

1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) during the two 

weeks’ test period was approximately 80 DKK per day per m3

. This means 

that addition of Fumetrol®

 21 is cheaper than the addition of PFOS. Due to 

the evaluation of the effectiveness and durability of the added amounts of the 

two products as described in Section 7.1, the direct cost of the use of 

69
Fumetrol®

 21 is lower as compared to PFOS. However, the difference in 

costs, when using Fumetrol®

 21 compared to PFOS, is small and the costs of 

using the two mist suppressants are expected to be about the same when 

transferring the small scale testing results from 14 days to yearly large scale 

production. 

The indirect economic expenses needed for changing from PFOS to the 

alternative mist suppressant Fumetrol®

 21 are assessed to be zero since 

Fumetrol®

 21 can be directly added to the chrome bath instead of PFOS when 

it is visible that the effect of PFOS is at a minimum. 

It is assessed that the difference in price regarding disposal of the chemical 

waste when using PFOS and the alternative mist suppressant Fumetrol®

 21 

should be close to zero. However, Fumetrol®

 21 is added in larger volumes as 

compared to the tested PFOS product which could influence the cost 

regarding disposal of chemical after long-term use. On the other hand, the 

mist suppressant “disappears”, i.e. is degraded and/or evaporated during use, 

therefore the difference may not be known when it comes to disposal of the 

chrome bath. The expenses of disposal of large scale chromium electrolyte are 

very high (se example in Section 6.4). Emptying and replacing the chemicals 

of the chrome bath is therefore only done when absolutely necessary, i.e. once 

every 6-10 years depending on the content of metal contamination (primarily 

cupper and iron from the mountings). 

7.3 Environment and health 

The adverse effects of PFOS have been extensively studied and much more 

data exists on this chemical than on the available alternatives. Therefore, the 

toxicity data available for the alternative compound 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) is very limited. 

PFOS is found widespread in nature and in animals and humans because it is 

a very persistent chemical and non-degradable in nature. Furthermore, PFOS 

and its precursors do have a tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in 

food chains. PFOS causes various adverse effects in humans, and for children 

a very conservative Tolerable Daily Intake of PFOS may already be exceeded. 

The alternative compound 1H,1H,2H,2H -perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

(Fumetrol®

 21) has a basic structure that is very similar to PFOS. Both 

contain a fluorinated C8

 alkyl chain. However, the alternative is not 

perfluorinated but has two non-fluorinated carbon atoms making it a 

polyfluorinated compound (fluorotelomer). Therefore, it is obvious that 

substituting PFOS with Fumetrol®

 21 (or other chemical products containing 

1H,1H,2H,2H -perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) will not be such a large 

environmental improvement as e.g. substituting PFOS with a non-fluorinated 

alternative. However, in this project, we have not been able to identify the 

chemical ingredients of non-fluorinated alternatives and the non-fluorinated 

alternative tested in pilot scale only seemed to be working with continuously 

addition of mist suppressing agent. 

As for PFOS the perfluorinated part of the alternative 1H,1H,2H,2H -

perfluorooctane sulfonic acid is not degradable. However, the non-fluorinated 

part of the alkyl chain can be degraded. Therefore, the 1H,1H,2H,2H -

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid is expected to be degraded in nature to nondegradable perfluorinated compounds with a C6- or C7

-chain. In general, the 

70
toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of the perfluorinated chemicals 

increase with the length of the alkyl chain. The toxicity of a perfluorinated C6

-

chain is 100 to 1000 times lower compared to a C8

-chain (as e.g. PFOS). 

Furthermore, computer models (QSAR) predict that the alternative The 

1H,1H,2H,2H -perfluorooctanesulfonic acid seems to be less persistent, less 

bioaccumulative, and less toxic compared to PFOS. 

Even though a substitution of PFOS (fully fluorinated/perfluorinated) with a 

(not fully fluorinated/polyflourinated) alternative is not a very large 

environmental improvement. Substituting PFOS with the alternative 

1H,1H,2H,2H -perfluorooctanesulfonic acid will on the other hand mean that 

the alternative is less persistent, less bioaccumulative, and less toxic than 

PFOS, and thus an environmental improvement. 

This project has therefore shown that it is possible to use a non-PFOS mist 

suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating. The exception “PFOS 

used as mist suppressant for non-decorative hard chromium-(VI) plating” in 

the restriction of use of PFOS in appendix XVII of REACH (Reg. 

1907/2006) can therefore be deleted according to the observations of this 

project. This is also in line with other observations from this project, i.e. the 

fact that Japan does not use PFOS at all for non-decorative hard chrome 

plating (is not allowed anymore). Instead a polyfluorinated compound is used 

as alternative. 

7.4 Assessment of the usability of the alternative solution within 

other areas 

As the PFOS alternative identified in the present project, Fumetrol®

 21, is a 

flour containing product, it is not recommended to be used in processes 

where the use of PFOS is already forbidden as more environmentally friendly 

solutions exist for these processes. 

According to the present legislation, PFOS is not forbidden in photoresists, 

photographic coatings, and hydraulic fluids for aviation. It is likely that the 

1H,1H, 2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (e.g. Fumetrol®

 21) can be 

found as a useful alternative for photoresists and photographic coatings in an 

intermediate period until more environmentally alternatives may be found. 

Due to the very high safety concerns in aviation, PFOS may be found to be 

the safest solution for hydraulic fluids for aviation. Unless it can be guaranteed 

as safe as PFOS it is unlikely that the 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic 

acid (e.g. Fumetrol®

 21) can be accepted as an alternative for this purpose. 

7.5 Conclusion 

All in all it can be concluded that the alternative compound 1H,1H,2H,2Hperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (Fumetrol®

 21) in a large scale test: 

 works as effective as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 seems to have the same durability as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 has the same price level as PFOS as mist suppressing agent, 

 can be substituted right away when PFOS is burnt out in the chrome 

bath without the need of changing the entire chrome bath chemicals, 

and 

71
 is an environmental improvement as it is less persistent, less 

bioaccumulative, and less toxic than PFOS. 

This project has therefore shown that it is possible to use a non-PFOS mist 

suppressant for non-decorative hard chrome plating. The exception “PFOS 

used as mist suppressant for non-decorative hard chromium (VI) plating” in 

the restriction of use of PFOS in appendix XVII of REACH (Reg. 

1907/2006) can therefore be deleted according to the observations of this 

project. This is also in line with other observations from this project, i.e. the 

fact that Japan does not use PFOS at all for non-decorative hard chrome 

plating (is not allowed anymore). Instead a polyfluorinated compound is used 

as alternative, like e.g. Fumetrol®

 21. 

The laboratory results also illustrated that a non-fluorinated mist suppressant 

alternative perhaps could be promising as a substitute for PFOS. However, as 

continuously addition of the mist suppressant is needed, the usefulness of the 

alternative seems to be limited for automated hard chrome processes and 

must be assessed in each case. 

The laboratory results of the project showed that the Cr6+ emission can be 

reduced radically by avoiding air convection. This indicates that large scale 

tests of a physical method that prevents air convection could turn out to be an 

alternative to PFOS. Such method would be a suitable alternative to PFOS in 

mass production systems. However, in plating system for frequently varying 

productions, it will be more difficult to establish a closed system because of 

the flexibility required to such systems. Such implementations would require a 

significant redesign of the production line. However, the very significant 

reduction of Cr6+ emissions when no ventilation was applied inspires for 

further evaluations on possible physical alternatives for avoiding 

transportation of aerosol from the surface which could be used in plating 

systems for frequently varying productions. Therefore, the project group 

recommends that this aspect should be investigated further as it could be a 

very interesting alternative to the use of chemical mist suppressants – either as 

an alternative used in combination with e.g. smaller amounts of mist 

suppressants or as a substitute for using mist suppressants. 

72
8 References 

3M, 1999. Perfluorooctane sulfonate: Current summary of human sera, 

health and toxicology data. 3M, January 21, 1999. 

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/scotchgard/pdfs/226-

0548.pdf

Andersen ME, Clewell HJ, Tan Y-M, Butenhoff JL, Olsen GW. 

Pharmacokinetic modelling af saturable, renal resorption of 

perfluoroalkylacids in monkeys – probing the determinants of long plasma 

half-lives. Toxicology 2006; 227: 156-164. 

Austin ME, Kasturi BS, Barber M, Kannan K, MohanKumar PS, 

MohanKumar SMJ. Neuroendocrine effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate in 

rats. Environ. Health Perspec 2003; 111: 1485-1489. 

Bossi R, Riget FF, Dietz R. Temporal and spatial trends of perfluorinated 

compounds in ringed seal (Phoca hispida) from Greenland. Environ Sci 

Technol 2005a; 39: 7416-7422. 

Bossi R, Riget FF, Dietz R, Sonne C, Fauser P, Dam M, Vorkamp K. 

Preliminary screening of perfluooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other 

fluorochemicals in fish, birds and marine mammals from Greenland and the 

Faeroe Islands. Environ Poll 2005b; 136: 323-329. 

Bots J, De Bruyn L, Snijkers T, Van den Branden B, Van Gossum H. 

Exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) adversely affects the lifecycle of the damselfly Enallagma cyathigerium. Environ Pollut 2010; 158: 

901-905). 

Carloni, 2009. Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Production and Use: Past 

and Current Evidence. Prepared for UNIDO. Dorian Carloni, Research 

Fellow, UNIDO Regional Office in China. December 2009. 

CEPA, 2006. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts and its precursors. 

Risk management strategy. June 2006. CEPA Environmental Registry. 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/documents/part/PFOS/s4.cfm 

Chicago Tribune, 2010. EPA targets chemical often dumped in Chicago 

sewers. By Michael Hawthorne, January 31, 2010. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-metal-plating-pollution20100131,0,5518963.story 

Directive 2006/122/EC. Directive 2006/122/EC of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 12 December 2006 amending for the 30th time Council 

Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and 

administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the 

marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations 

(perfluorooctane sulfonates). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:372:0032:0034:EN:

PDF 

73
EN 15259:2007. “Air quality. Measurement of stationary source emissions. 

Requirements for measurement sections and sites and for the measurement 

objective, plan and report.” 2007-11-05 DS/EN 15259. 

European Commission, 2010. Implementation of the restriction on PFOS 

under the Directive 2006/122/EC – electroplating applications and fire 

fighting foams containing PFOS stocks. Brussels, 29 January, 2010. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/reach/restr_inventory_list

_pfos_en.pdf 

Fei C, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Olsen J. Maternal levels of perfluorinated 

chemicals and subfecundity. Human Reproduction 2009; 1: 1-6. 

FOEN, 2009. Substance flow analysis for Switzerland. Perfluorinated 

surfactants perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid 

(PFOA). 22/09. Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern, 2009. 

http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01066/index.html?lang=

en 

Giesy JP, Kannan K. Perfluorochemical surfactants in the environment. 

Environ Sci Technol 2002; 36: 147A-152A. 

Hofmann et al., 2010. Exposure to Polyfluorolakyl Chemicals and Attention 

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in U.S. Children Aged 12-15 Years. 

Environmental Health Perspectives, June 2010. 

Hundley SG, Sarrif AM, Kennedy GL Jr. Absorption, distribution and 

excretion of ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) after oral administration 

to various species. Drug Chem Toxicol 2006; 29: 137-145. 

KEMI, 2004. PFOS-relaterede ämnen. Strategi för utfasning. PFOS related 

substances. Strategy for a phase-out. In Swedish. Swedish Chemicals Agency. 

Report 03/2004. 

http://www.kemi.se/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/Rapporter/Rapport3_04.pdf 

Jensen AA, Poulsen PB, Bossi R. Kemi, anvendelse, forekomst og effekter af 

perfluoralkylsyrer (PFOS, PFOA etc.) - en ny type miljøgifte. Miljø og 

Sundhed 2006: 12(30); 20-30. 

Jensen AA, Poulsen PB, Bossi R. Survey and environmental/health assessment 

of fluorinated substances in impregnated consumer products and 

impregnating agents. Survey of chemical substances in consumer products, 

No. 99, 2008. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2008/978-87-7052-

845-0/pdf/978-87-7052-846-7.pdf 

Joensen UN, Bossi R, Leffers H, Jensen AA, Skakkebæk NE, Jørgensen N. Do 

Perfluoroalkyl Compounds Impair Human Semen Quality? Environ Health 

Perspec 2009; 117: 923-927. 

Jun Huang, 2010. Presentation at the International Workshop on new POPs, 

Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. 

74
Koropchak JA, Roychowhury SB. Evidence for Aerosol Ionic Redistribution 

within Aerosols Produced by Chrome electroplating. Environ Sci Technol 

1990; 24: 1861-1863. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es00082a012 

Mei Shengfang. China Association of Fluorine and silicone industry. 

Presentation at the International Workshop on new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 

2010. 

Melzer et al., 2010. Association between Serum Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

(PFOA) and Thyroid Disease in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey. Melzer D, Rice N, Depledge MH, Henley WE, 

Galloway TS. Environment Health Perspective 118 (5), May 2010. 

http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3

Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901584 

MEP China, 2008. Preliminary Information on Risk Management Evaluation 

of PFOS’s in China. Fax to the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention from 

MEP, China (Ministry of Environmental Protection of China), April 30, 

2008. 

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/submissions/PFOS_2008/PF

OS_China_080430.pdf

Nelson et al., 2010. Exposure to Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals and Cholesterol, 

Body Weight, and Insulin Resistance in the General U.S. Population. Nelsen 

JW, Hatch EE, Webster TF. Environment Health Perspective, 118 (2), Feb 

2010. 

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1

289/ehp.0901165 

Newsted JL, Beach SA, Gallagher SP, Giesy JP. Acute and chronic effects of 

perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) on the Mallard and Northern Bobwhite 

quail. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2008; 54: 535-545. 

NICNAS. “Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate: Hazard assessment.” 

Australian Government. 

http://www.nicnas.gov.au/publications/car/other/potassium_perfluorobutane_s

ulfonate_pdf.pdf

NICNAS Alert No. 5, 2007. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) & 

perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS). NICNAS Alert No. 5. Australian 

Government. Department of Health and Ageing NICNAS. 

http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/NICNAS_Alerts/EC_Alert5.pdf

NICNAS Alert No. 8, 2008. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and 

perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS). NICNAS Alert No. 8. Australian 

Government. Department of Health and Ageing NICNAS. 

http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/NICNAS_Alerts/EC_Alert8.pdf

OECD, 2005. Results of survey on production and use of PFOS, PFAS and 

PFOA, related substances and products/mixtures containing these substances. 

ENV/JM/MONO(2005)1, 13-Jan-2005. OECD, Environment Directorate, 

Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, 

pesticides and biotechnology. 

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(2005)1 

75
OECD, 2006. Results of the 2006 survey on production and use of PFOS, 

PFAS, PFOA, PFCA, their related substances and products/mixtures 

containing these substances. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)36, 06-Dec-2006. 

OECD, Environment Directorate, Joint meeting of the chemicals committee 

and the working party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. 

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2006doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT000073C6/$FILE/JT03

219292.PDF 

Pilat MJ, Pegnam RC. Particle emissions from chrome plating. Aerosol. 

Science and Technology 2006; 40: 639-648. 

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/486099__748861494.pdf 

Poulsen PB, Jensen AA, Wallström E. More environmentally friendly 

alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA. Environmental project No. 

1013, Danish EPA, 2005. 

http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/U

dgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-668-5/html/default_eng.htm 

Reg. 1907/2006. REACH. Regulation No. 1907/2006 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 

(REACH). 

Renner R, 2009. EPA finds record PFOS, PFOA levels in Alabama grazing 

fields. Environ Sci Technol 2009; 43: 1246-1247 

Richard Holt, DuPont, 2010. Presentation at the International Workshop on 

new POPs, Beijing, 1-2 July, 2010. 

RPA & BRE, 2004. Perfluorooctane Sulphonate. Risk Reduction Strategy and 

Analysis of Advantages and Drawbacks. Final report prepared for 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the 

Environment Agency for England and Wales. RPA in association with BRE 

Environment, August 2004. 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/chemicals/documents/pfosriskstrategy.pdf 

Seacat AM, Thomford PJ, Hansen KJ, Olsen GW, Case MT, Butenhoff JL. 

Subchronic toxicity studies on perfluorooctane sulfonate potassium salt in 

Cynomolgus monkeys. Toxicol Sci 2002; 68: 249-264. 

SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17/Add.5, 2006. Risk profile on perfluorooctane 

sulfonate. 

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc_2/meeting_docs/report/POPR

C-2%20rep%20add5.pdf 

SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.3/13, 2007. Draft risk management evaluation: 

perfluorooctane sulfonate. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants. 29 August 2007. 

SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/3, 2009. Outcome of the fourth meeting of 

the Conference of the Parties relevant to the work of the Persistant Organic 

Pollutants Review Committee. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants. 29 July 2009. 

76
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPsReviewCommittee/hrPOPRCMeetings/

POPRC5/POPRC5Documents/tabid/592/language/en-US/Default.aspx 

SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/INF/14, 2009. Comments and responses relating 

to the annotated outline for a guidance document on perfluorooctane 

sulfonate alternatives. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants. 11 August 2009. 

http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPsReviewCommittee/hrPOPRCMeetings/

POPRC5/POPRC5Documents/tabid/592/language/en-US/Default.aspx 

SC UNEP POPRC Draft, 2010. Draft Guidance document on Alternatives to 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its derivatives. 

http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPsReviewCommittee/hrPOPRCMeetings/

POPRC5/POPRC5Followupcommunications/PFOSalternativesguidanceInvit

ationforcomments/tabid/741/language/en-US/Default.aspx 

SFT, 2004. Bruken av PerFluorAlkylStoffer (PFAS) i produkter i Norge. 

Materialstrømsanalyse. Use of PFAS in products in Norway. TA-2031/2004. 

Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency. 

http://www.klif.no/publikasjoner/kjemikalier/2031/ta2031.pdf 

SFT, 2005. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctyl sulphonate 

(PFOS)-related substances. Action plan. 2005. Norwegian Climate and 

Pollution Agency. 

http://www.klif.no/arbeidsomr/kjemikalier/pfos/pfas_actionplan.pdf 

SSC, 2008. Annex F Questionnaire – Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). 

Name of submitting Party: Romania. Secretariat of the Stockholm 

Convention. 29 April, 2008. 

http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/addinfo_2008/UNEP-POPSPOPRC-SUB-F08-PFOS-ADIN-ROM.English.DOC 

Strand J, Bossi R, Sortkjær O, Landkildehus F, Larsen MM. PFAS og 

organotin forbindelser i punktkilder og det akvatiske miljø. DMU Faglig 

Rapport nr. 608, 2007. http://www.dmu.dk/ 

TNO, 2006. Study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Persistent Organic 

Pollutants (POP) Protocol and cost of additional measures. Phase II: 

Estimated emission reduction and cost of options for a possible revision of the 

POP Protocol. TNO Built Environment and Geosciences. TNO-report, 

2006-A-R0187/B. July 2006. 

US EPA, 2010. EPA Action on PFAS Compounds. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/pfas.html 

Vanden Heuvel JP, Kuslikis BI, Peterson RE. Covalent binding of 

perfluorinated fatty acids to proteins in the plasma liver and testes of rats. 

Chem-Biol Interact 1992; 82: 317-328. 

Yeung LWY, Miake Y, Taniyasu S, Wang Y, Yu H, So MK, Jiang G, Wu Y, 

Li J, Giesy JP, Yamashita N, Lam PKS. Perfluorinated compounds in total 

and extractable fluorine in human blood samples from China. Environ Sci 

Technol 2008;42: 8140-8145. 

77
78

ZVO, 2008. Position des Zentralverbandes Oberflächentechnik e.V. zu 

Perfluoroctansulfonaten (PFOS). 14.09.2008. 

http://www.zvo.org/uploads/media/ZVO-Position_200809.pdf 
Bilag A 

Large scale testing of PFOS and 

Fumetrol® 21 at a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom A/S. 

Test report of large scale testing of PFOS and Fumetrol® 21 at a.h. nichro 

Haardchrom A/S.