12.20 Electroplating

This section addresses the electroplating industry. However, emphasis is placed on chromium

electroplating and chromic acid anodizing because the majority of emissions data and other

information available were for this area of the electroplating industry. Detailed information on the

process operations, emissions, and controls associated with other types of electroplating will be added

to this section as it becomes available. The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for

electroplating is 3-09-010.

12.20.1 Process Description1-4

Electroplating is the process of applying a metallic coating to an article by passing an electric

current through an electrolyte in contact with the article, thereby forming a surface having properties

or dimensions different from those of the article. Essentially any electrically conductive surface can

be electroplated. Special techniques, such as coating with metallic-loaded paints or silver-reduced

spray, can be used to make nonconductive surfaces, such as plastic, electrically conductive for

electroplating. The metals and alloy substrates electroplated on a commercial scale are cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, gold, indium, iron, lead, nickel, platinum group metals, silver, tin, zinc,

brass, bronze, many gold alloys, lead-tin, nickel-iron, nickel-cobalt, nickel-phosphorus, tin-nickel, tinzinc, zinc-nickel, zinc-cobalt, and zinc-iron. Electroplated materials are generally used for a specific

property or function, although there may be some overlap, e. g., a material may be electroplated for

decorative use as well as for corrosion resistance.

The essential components of an electroplating process are an electrode to be plated (the

cathode or substrate), a second electrode to complete the circuit (the anode), an electrolyte containing

the metal ions to be deposited, and a direct current power source. The electrodes are immersed in the

electrolyte with the anode connected to the positive leg of the power supply and the cathode to the

negative leg. As the current is increased from zero, a point is reached where metal plating begins to

occur on the cathode. The plating tank is either made of or lined with totally inert materials to protect

the tank. Anodes can be either soluble or insoluble, with most electroplating baths using one or the

other type. The majority of power supplies are solid-state silicon rectifiers, which may have a variety

of modifications, such as stepless controls, constant current, and constant voltage. Plate thickness is

dependent on the cathode efficiency of a particular plating solution, the current density, and the

amount of plating time. The following section describes the electroplating process. Following the

description of chromium plating, information is provided on process parameters for other types of

electroplating.

12.20.1.1 Chromium Electroplating -

Chromium plating and anodizing operations include hard chromium electroplating of metals,

decorative chromium electroplating of metals, decorative chromium electroplating of plastics, chromic

acid anodizing, and trivalent chromium plating. Each of these categories of the chromium

electroplating industry is described below.

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-1
Hard Chromium Electroplating -

In hard plating, a relatively thick layer of chromium is deposited directly on the base metal

(usually steel) to provide a surface with wear resistance, a low coefficient of friction, hardness, and

corrosion resistance, or to build up surfaces that have been eroded by use. Hard plating is used for

items such as hydraulic cylinders and rods, industrial rolls, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine

components, and marine hardware.

Figure 12.20-1 presents a process flow diagram for hard chromium electroplating. The process

consists of pretreatment, alkaline cleaning, acid dipping, chromic acid anodizing, and chromium

electroplating. The pretreatment step may include polishing, grinding, and degreasing. Degreasing

consists of either dipping the part in organic solvents, such as trichloroethylene or perchloroethylene,

or using the vapors from organic solvents to remove surface grease. Alkaline cleaning is used to

dislodge surface soil with inorganic cleaning solutions, such as sodium carbonate, sodium phosphate,

or sodium hydroxide. Acid dipping, which is optional, is used to remove tarnish or oxide films

formed in the alkaline cleaning step and to neutralize the alkaline film. Acid dip solutions typically

contain 10 to 30 percent hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. Chromic acid anodic treatment, which also is

optional, cleans the metal surface and enhances the adhesion of chromium in the electroplating step.

The final step in the process is the electroplating operation itself.

The plating tanks typically are equipped with some type of heat exchanger. Mechanical

agitators or compressed air supplied through pipes on the tank bottom provide uniformity of bath

temperature and composition. Chromium electroplating requires constant control of the plating bath

temperature, current density, plating time, and bath composition.

Hexavalent chromium plating baths are the most widely used baths to deposit chromium on

metal. Hexavalent chromium baths are composed of chromic acid, sulfuric acid, and water. The

chromic acid is the source of the hexavalent chromium that reacts and deposits on the metal and is

emitted to the atmosphere. The sulfuric acid in the bath catalyzes the chromium deposition reactions.

The evolution of hydrogen gas from chemical reactions at the cathode consumes 80 to

90 percent of the power supplied to the plating bath, leaving the remaining 10 to 20 percent for the

deposition reaction. When the hydrogen gas evolves, it causes misting at the surface of the plating

bath, which results in the loss of chromic acid to the atmosphere.

Decorative Chromium Electroplating -

Decorative chromium electroplating is applied to metals and plastics. In decorative plating of

metals, the base material generally is plated with layers of copper and nickel followed by a relatively

thin layer of chromium to provide a bright surface with wear and tarnish resistance. Decorative

plating is used for items such as automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing

fixtures.

Figure 12.20-2 presents a process flow diagram for decorative chromium electroplating. The

process consists of pretreatment, alkaline cleaning, and acid dipping, which were described previously,

followed by strike plating of copper, copper electroplating, nickel electroplating, and chromium

electroplating. The copper strike plating step consists of applying a thin layer of copper in a copper

cyanide solution to enhance the conductive properties of the base metal. Following the copper strike

plate, the substrate is acid dipped again, and then electroplated with an undercoat of copper to improve

corrosion resistance and cover defects. Either a copper cyanide or acid copper solution is used in this

step. The substrate then is plated with nickel in two layers (semibright nickel and bright nickel) to

further improve corrosion resistance and activate the surface metal for chromium electroplating.

12.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Figure 12.20-1. Flow diagram for a typical hard chromium plating process.3

(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-3
Figure 12.20-2. Flow diagram for decorative chromium plating on a metal substrate.3

(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

12.20-4 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Semibright and bright nickel plating both use Watts plating baths. The final step in the process is the

electroplating operation itself.

Decorative electroplating baths operate on the same principle as that of the hard chromium

plating process. However, decorative chromium plating requires shorter plating times and operates at

lower current densities than does hard chromium plating. Some decorative chromium plating

operations use fluoride catalysts instead of sulfuric acid because fluoride catalysts, such as fluosilicate

or fluoborate, have been found to produce higher bath efficiencies.

Most plastics that are electroplated with chromium are formed from acrylonitrile butadiene

styrene (ABS). The process for chromium electroplating of ABS plastics consists of the following

steps: chromic acid/sulfuric acid etch; dilute hydrochloric acid dip; colloidal palladium activation;

dilute hydrochloric acid dip; electroless nickel plating or copper plating; and chromium electroplating

cycle. After each process step, the plastic is rinsed with water to prevent carry-over of solution from

one bath to another. The electroplating of plastics follows the same cycle as that described for

decorative chromium electroplating.

Chromic Acid Anodizing -

Chromic acid anodizing is used primarily on aircraft parts and architectural structures that are

subject to high stress and corrosion. Chromic acid anodizing is used to provide an oxide layer on

aluminum for corrosion protection, electrical insulation, ease of coloring, and improved dielectric

strength. Figure 12.20-3 presents a flow diagram for a typical chromic acid anodizing process.

There are four primary differences between the equipment used for chromium electroplating

and that used for chromic acid anodizing: chromic acid anodizing requires the rectifier to be fitted

with a rheostat or other control mechanism to permit starting at about 5 V; the tank is the cathode in

the electrical circuit; the aluminum substrate acts as the anode; and sidewall shields typically are used

instead of a liner in the tank to minimize short circuits and to decrease the effective cathode area.

Types of shield materials used are herculite glass, wire safety glass, neoprene, and vinyl chloride

polymers.

Before anodizing, the aluminum must be pretreated by means of the following steps: alkaline

soak, desmutting, etching, and vapor degreasing. The pretreatment steps used for a particular

aluminum substrate depend upon the amount of smut and the composition of the aluminum. The

aluminum substrate is rinsed between pretreatment steps to remove cleaners.

During anodizing, the voltage is applied step-wise (5 V per minute) from 0 to 40 V and

maintained at 40 V for the remainder of the anodizing time. A low starting voltage (i. e., 5 V)

minimizes current surge that may cause "burning" at contact points between the rack and the

aluminum part. The process is effective over a wide range of voltages, temperatures, and anodizing

times. All other factors being equal, high voltages tend to produce bright transparent films, and lower

voltages tend to produce opaque films. Raising the bath temperature increases current density to

produce thicker films in a given time period. Temperatures up to 49°C (120°F) typically are used to

produce films that are to be colored by dyeing. The amount of current varies depending on the size of

the aluminum parts; however, the current density typically ranges from 1,550 to 7,750 A/m2 (144 to

720 A/ft2).

The postanodizing steps include sealing and air drying. Sealing causes hydration of the

aluminum oxide and fills the pores in the aluminum surface. As a result, the elasticity of the oxide

film increases, but the hardness and wear resistance decrease. Sealing is performed by immersing

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-5
Figure 12.20-3. Flow diagram for a typical chromic acid anodizing process.3

(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

12.20-6 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
aluminum in a water bath at 88° to 99°C (190° to 210°F) for a minimum of 15 minutes. Chromic

acid or other chromates may be added to the solution to help improve corrosion resistance. The

aluminum is allowed to air dry after it is sealed.

Trivalent Chromium Plating -

Trivalent chromium electroplating baths have been developed primarily to replace decorative

hexavalent chromium plating baths. Development of a trivalent bath has proven to be difficult because

trivalent chromium solvates in water to form complex stable ions that do not readily release chromium.

Currently, there are two types of trivalent chromium processes on the market: single-cell and

double-cell. The major differences in the two processes are that the double-cell process solution

contains minimal-to-no chlorides, whereas the single-cell process solution contains a high

concentration of chlorides. In addition, the double-cell process utilizes lead anodes that are placed in

anode boxes that contain a dilute sulfuric acid solution and are lined with a permeable membrane,

whereas the single-cell process utilizes carbon or graphite anodes that are placed in direct contact with

the plating solution. Details on these processes are not available because the trivalent chromium baths

currently on the market are proprietary.

The advantages of the trivalent chromium processes over the hexavalent chromium process are

fewer environmental concerns due to the lower toxicity of trivalent chromium, higher productivity, and

lower operating costs. In the trivalent chromium process, hexavalent chromium is a plating bath

contaminant. Therefore, the bath does not contain any appreciable amount of hexavalent chromium.

The total chromium concentration of trivalent chromium solutions is approximately one-fifth that of

hexavalent chromium solutions. As a result of the chemistry of the trivalent chromium electrolyte,

misting does not occur during plating as it does during hexavalent chromium plating. Use of trivalent

chromium also reduces waste disposal problems and costs.

The disadvantages of the trivalent chromium process are that the process is more sensitive to

contamination than the hexavalent chromium process, and the trivalent chromium process cannot plate

the full range of plate thicknesses that the hexavalent chromium process can. Because it is sensitive to

contamination, the trivalent chromium process requires more thorough rinsing and tighter laboratory

control than does the hexavalent chromium process. Trivalent chromium baths can plate thicknesses

ranging up to 0.13 to 25 μm (0.005 to 1.0 mils) and, therefore, cannot be used for most hard

chromium plating applications. The hexavalent chromium process can plate thicknesses up to 762 μm

(30 mils).

12.20.1.2 Electroplating-Other Metals -

Brass Electroplating -

Brass, which is an alloy of copper and uzinc, is the most widely used alloy electroplate. Brass

plating primarily is used for decorative applications, but it is also used for engineering applications

such as for plating steel wire cord for steel-belted radial tires. Although all of the alloys of copper

and zinc can be plated, the brass alloy most often used includes 70 to 80 percent copper, with the

balance zinc. Typical brass plating baths include 34 g/L (4.2 oz/gal) of copper cyanide and 10 g/L

(1.3 oz/gal) of zinc cyanide. Other bath constituents include sodium cyanide, soda ash, and ammonia.

Cadmium Electroplating -

Cadmium plating generally is performed in alkaline cyanide baths that are prepared by

dissolving cadmium oxide in a sodium cyanide solution. However, because of the hazards associated

with cyanide use, noncyanide cadmium plating solutions are being used more widely. The primary

noncyanide plating solutions are neutral sulfate, acid fluoborate, and acid sulfate. The cadmium

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-7
concentration in plating baths ranges from 3.7 to 94 g/L (0.5 to 12.6 oz/gal) depending on the type of

solution. Current densities range from 22 to 970 A/m2 (2 to 90 A/ft2).

Copper Electroplating -

Copper cyanide plating is widely used in many plating operations as a strike. However, its use

for thick deposits is decreasing. For copper cyanide plating, cuprous cyanide must be complexed with

either potassium or sodium to form soluble copper compounds in aqueous solutions. Copper cyanide

plating baths typically contain 30 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of copper cyanide and either 59 g/L (7.8 oz/gal) of

potassium cyanide or 48 g/L (6.4 oz/gal) of sodium cyanide. Current densities range from 54 to 430

A/m2 (5 to 40 A/ft2). Cathode efficiencies range from 30 to 60 percent.

Other types of baths used in copper plating include copper pyrophosphate and copper sulfate

baths. Copper pyrophosphate plating, which is used for plating on plastics and printed circuits,

requires more control and maintenance of the plating baths than copper cyanide plating does.

However, copper pyrophosphate solutions are relatively nontoxic. Copper pyrophosphate plating baths

typically contain 53 to 84 g/L (7.0 to 11.2 oz/gal) of copper pyrophosphate and 200 to 350 g/L (27 to

47 oz/gal) of potassium pyrophosphate. Current densities range from 110 to 860 A/m2 (10 to

80 A/ft2).

Copper sulfate baths, which are more economical to prepare and operate than copper

pyrophosphate baths, are used for plating printed circuits, electronics, rotogravure, and plastics, and for

electroforming and decorative uses. In this type of bath copper and sulfate and sulfuric acid form the

ionized species in solution. Copper sulphate plating baths typically contain 195 to 248 g/L (26 to

33 oz/gal) of copper sulphate and 11 to 75 g/L (1.5 to 10 oz/gal) of sulfuric acid. Current densities

range from 215 to 1,080 A/m2 (20 to 100 A/ft2).

Gold Electroplating -

Gold and gold alloy plating are used in a wide variety of applications. Gold plating solutions

can be classified in five general groups: alkaline gold cyanide, for gold and gold alloy plating; neutral

cyanide gold, for high purity gold plating; acid gold cyanide, for bright hard gold and gold alloy

plating; noncyanide (generally sulfite), for gold and gold plating; and miscellaneous. Alkaline gold

cyanide plating baths contain 8 to 20 g/L (1.1 to 2.7 oz/gal) of potassium gold cyanide and 15 to

100 g/L (2.0 to 13.4 oz/gal) of potassium cyanide. Current densities range from 11 to 86 A/m2 (1.0 to

8 A/ft2

) and cathode efficiencies range from 90 to 100 percent.

Neutral gold cyanide plating baths contain 8 to 30 g/L (1.1 to 4.0 oz/gal) of potassium gold

cyanide. Current densities range from 11 to 4,300 A/m2 (1.0 to 400 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies

range from 90 to 98 percent.

Acid gold cyanide plating baths contain 8 to 16 g/L (1.1 to 2.1 oz/gal) of potassium gold

cyanide. Current densities range from 11 to 4,300 A/m2 (1.0 to 400 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies

range from 30 to 40 percent.

Indium Electroplating -

In general, indium is electroplated using three types of plating baths: cyanide, sulfamate, and

fluoborate. Indium is the only trivalent metal that can be electrodeposited readily from a cyanide

solution. Cyanide baths are used in applications that require very high throwing power and adhesion.

Indium cyanide plating baths typically contain 33 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of indium metal and 96 g/L

(12.8 oz/gal) of total cyanide. Current densities range from 162 to 216 A/m2 (15 to 20 A/ft2), and

cathode efficiencies range from 50 to 75 percent.

12.20-8 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Indium sulfamate baths are very stable, relatively easy to control, and characterized by a high

cathode efficiency that remains relatively high (90 percent). The plating baths typically contain

105 g/L (14 oz/gal) of indium sulfamate and 26 g/L (3.5 oz/gal) of sulfamic acid. Current densities

range from 108 to 1,080 A/m2 (10 to 100 A/ft2).

Indium fluoborate plating baths typically contain 236 g/L (31.5 oz/gal) of indium fluoborate

and 22 to 30 g/L (2.9 to 4.0 oz/gal) of boric acid. Current densities range from 540 to 1,080 A/m2

(50 to 100 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies range from 40 to 75 percent.

Nickel Electroplating -

Nickel plating is used for decorative, engineering, and electroforming purposes. Decorative

nickel plating differs from other types of nickel plating in that the solutions contain organic agents,

such as benzene disulfonic acids, benzene trisulfonic acid, naphthalene trisulfonic acid, benzene

sulfonamide, formaldehyde, coumarin, ethylene cyanohydrin, and butynediol. Nickel plating for

engineering applications uses solutions that deposit pure nickel. In nickel plating baths, the total

nickel content ranges from 60 to 84 g/L (8 to 11.2 oz/gal), and boric acid concentrations range from

30 to 37.5 g/L (4 to 5 oz/gal). Current densities range from 540 to 600 A/m2 (50 to 60 A/ft2), and

cathode efficiencies range from 93 to 97 percent.

Palladium and Palladium-Nickel Electroplating -

Palladium plating solutions are categorized as ammoniacal, chelated, or acid. Ammoniacal

palladium plating baths contain 10 to 15 g/L (1.3 to 2.0 oz/gal) of palladium ammonium nitrate or

palladium ammonium chloride, and current densities range from 1 to 25 A/m2 (0.093 to 2.3 A/ft2).

Palladium acid plating baths contain 50 g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of palladium chloride, and current densities

range from 1 to 10 A/m2 (0.093 to 0.93 A/ft2).

Palladium alloys readily with other metals, the most important of which is nickel. Palladium

nickel electroplating baths contain 3 g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of palladium metal and 3 g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of

nickel metal.

Platinum Electroplating -

Solutions used for platinum plating are similar to those used for palladium plating. Plating

baths contain 5.0 to 20 g/L (0.68 oz/gal) of either dinitroplatinite sulfate or chloroplatinic acid, and

current densities range from 1 to 20 A/m2 (0.093 to 1.86 A/ft2

).

Rhodium Electroplating -

Rhodium plating traditionally has been used as decorative plating in jewelry and silverware.

However, the use of rhodium plating for electronics and other industrial applications has been

increasing in recent years. For decorative plating, rhodium baths contain 1.3 to 2.0 g/L (0.17 to

0.27 oz/gal) of rhodium phosphate or rhodium sulfate concentrate and 25 to 80 ml/L (3.0 to 11 oz/gal)

of phosphoric or sulfuric acid. Current densities typically range from 20 to 100 A/m2 (1.86 to

9.3 A-ft2

). For industrial and electronic applications, rhodium plating baths contain approximately

5.0 g/L (0.67 oz/gal) of rhodium metal as sulfate concentrate and 25 to 50 ml/L (3.0 to 7.0 oz/gal) of

sulfuric acid. Current densities typically range from 10 to 30 A/m2 (0.93 to 2.79 A-ft2), and cathode

efficiency ranges from 70 to 90 percent with agitation or 50 to 60 percent without agitation.

Ruthenium Electroplating -

Electroplated ruthenium is a very good electrical conductor and produces a very hard deposit.

Typical plating baths contain approximately 5.3 g/L (0.71 oz/gal) of ruthenium as sulfamate or nitrosyl

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-9
sulfamate and 8.0 g/L (1.1 oz/gal) of sulfamic acid. Current densities typically range from 108 to

320 A/m2 (10 to 30 A-ft2

), and cathode efficiency is typically about 20 percent.

Silver Electroplating -

Silver plating traditionally has been performed using a cyanide-based plating solution.

Although some noncyanide solutions have been developed, due to various shortcomings, cyanide

solutions still are commonly used. Typical plating baths contain 5.0 to 40 g/L (0.67 to 5.3 oz/gal) of

silver as potassium silver cyanide and 12 to 120 g/L (1.6 to 16 oz/gal) of potassium cyanide. Current

densities typically range from 11 to 430 A/m2 (1 to 40 A-ft2).

Tin-Lead, Lead, and Tin Electroplating -

Fluoborate and fluoboric acid can be used to plate all percentages of tin and lead. Alloys of

tin and lead are most commonly used for plating in the proportions of 60 percent tin and 40 percent

lead. Tin-lead plating baths typically contain 52 to 60 g/L (7.0 to 8.0 oz/gal) of stannous tin, 23 to

30 g/L (3.0 to 4.0 oz/gal) of lead, 98 to 150 g/L (13 to 20 oz/gal) of fluoboric acid, and 23 to 38 g/L

(3.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid. Current densities typically range from 270 to 380 A/m2 (25 to

35 A-ft2).

Lead fluoborate plating baths typically contain 340 to 410 g/L (45 to 55 oz/gal) of lead

fluoborate, 195 to 240 g/L (26 to 32 oz/gal) of lead, 15 to 30 g/L (2.0 to 4.0 oz/gal) of fluoboric acid,

and 23 to 38 g/L (3.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid. Current densities typically range from 215 to

750 A/m2 (20 to 70 A-ft2).

Tin plating generally is performed using one of three types of plating solutions (stannous

fluoborate, stannous sulfate, or sodium or potassium stannate) or by the halogen tin process. Stannous

fluoborate plating baths include 75 to 110 g/L (10 to 15 oz/gal) of stannous fluoborate, 30 to 45 g/L

(4.0 to 6.0 oz/gal) of tin, 190 to 260 g/L (25 to 35 oz/gal) of fluoboric acid, and 23 to 38 g/L (3.0 to

5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid. Current densities typically range from 215 to 270 A/m2 (20 to 25 A-ft2),

and cathode efficiencies are greater than 95 percent.

Stannous sulfate plating baths include 15 to 45 g/L (2.0 to 6.0 oz/gal) of stannous sulfate, 7.5

to 22.5 g/L (1.0 to 3.0 oz/gal) of stannous tin, and 135 to 210 g/L (18 to 28 oz/gal) of sulfuric acid.

Current densities typically range from 10 to 270 A/m2 (1 to 25 A-ft2), and cathode efficiencies are

greater than 95 percent.

Sodium/potassium stannate plating baths include 90 to 180 g/L (12 to 24 oz/gal) of sodium

stannate or 100 to 200 g/L (13 to 27 oz/gal) of potassium stannate and 40 to 80 g/L (5.3 to 11 oz/gal)

of tin metal. Current densities typically range from 10 to 1,080 A/m2 (1 to 100 A-ft2).

Tin-Nickel Electroplating -

Tin-nickel alloy plating is used in light engineering and electronic applications and is used as

an alternative to decorative chromium plating. Tin-nickel fluoride plating baths contain 49 g/L (6.5

oz/gal) of stannous chloride anhydrous, 300 g/L (40 oz/gal) of nickel chloride, and 56 g/L (7.5 oz/gal)

of ammonium bifluoride. Current densities are typically about 270 A/m2 (25 A-ft2

).

Tin-nickel pyrophosphate plating baths contain 28 g/L (3.2 oz/gal) of stannous chloride,

31 g/L (4.2 oz/gal) of nickel chloride, and 190 g/L (26 oz/gal) of potassium pyrophosphate. Current

densities range from 52 to 150 A/m2 (4.8 to 14 A-ft2

).

12.20-10 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Zinc Electroplating -

The most widely used zinc plating solutions are categorized as acid chloride, alkaline

noncyanide, and cyanide. The most widely used zinc alloys for electroplating are zinc-nickel, zinccobalt, and zinc-iron. Zinc plating baths contain 15 to 38 g/L (2.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of acid chloride zinc,

6.0 to 23 g/L (0.80 to 3.0 oz/gal) of alkaline noncyanide zinc, or 7.5 to 34 g/L (1.0 to 4.5 oz/gal) of

cyanide zinc.

Acid zinc-nickel plating baths contain 120 to 130 g/L (16 to 17 oz/gal) of zinc chloride and

110 to 130 g/L (15 to 17 oz/gal) of nickel chloride. Alkaline zinc-nickel plating baths contain 8.0 g/L

(1.1 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 1.6 g/L (0.21 oz/gal) of nickel metal. Current densities range from 5.0

to 40 A/m2 (0.46 to 3.7 A-ft2) and 20 to 100 A/m2 (1.9 to 9.3 A/ft2) for acid and alkaline baths,

respectively.

Acid zinc-cobalt plating baths contain 30 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 1.9 to 3.8 g/L

(0.25 to 0.51 oz/gal) of cobalt metal. Alkaline zinc-cobalt plating baths contain 6.0 to 9.0 g/L (0.80 to

1.2 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 0.030 to 0.050 g/L (0.0040 to 0.0067 oz/gal) of cobalt metal. Current

densities range from 1.0 to 500 A/m2 (0.093 to 46 A-ft2) and 20 to 40 A/m2 (1.9 to 3.7 A/ft2) for acid

and alkaline baths, respectively.

Acid zinc-iron plating baths contain 200 to 300 g/L (27 to 40 oz/gal) of ferric sulfate and 200

to 300 g/L (27 to 40 oz/gal) of zinc sulfate. Alkaline zinc-iron plating baths contain 20 to 25 g/L (2.7

to 3.3 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 0.25 to 0.50 g/L (0.033 to 0.067 oz/gal) of iron metal. Current

densities range from 15 to 30 A/m2 (1.4 to 2.8 A-ft2).

12.20.2 Emissions and Controls2-3,43-44

Plating operations generate mists due to the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gas. The gases

are formed in the process tanks on the surface of the submerged part or on anodes or cathodes. As

these gas bubbles rise to the surface, they escape into the air and may carry considerable liquid with

them in the form of a fine mist. The rate of gassing is a function of the chemical or electrochemical

activity in the tank and increases with the amount of work in the tank, the strength and temperature of

the solution, and the current densities in the plating tanks. Air sparging also can result in emissions

from the bursting of air bubbles at the surface of the plating tank liquid.

Emissions are also generated from surface preparation steps, such as alkaline cleaning, acid

dipping, and vapor degreasing. These emissions are in the form of alkaline and acid mists and solvent

vapors. The extent of acid misting from the plating processes depends mainly on the efficiency of the

plating bath and the degree of air sparging or mechanical agitation. For many metals, plating baths

have high cathode efficiencies so that the generation of mist is minimal. However, the cathode

efficiency of chromium plating baths is very low (10 to 20 percent), and a substantial quantity of

chromic acid mist is generated. The following paragraphs describe the methods used to control

emissions from chromium electroplating. These methods generally apply to other types of plating

operations as well.

Emissions of chromic acid mist from the electrodeposition of chromium from chromic acid

plating baths occur because of the inefficiency of the hexavalent chromium plating process. Only

about 10 to 20 percent of the current applied actually is used to deposit chromium on the item plated;

the remaining 80 to 90 percent of the current applied is consumed by the evolution of hydrogen gas at

the cathode with the resultant liberation of gas bubbles. Additional bubbles are formed at the anode

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-11
due to the evolution of oxygen. As the bubbles burst at the surface of the plating solution, a fine mist

of chromic acid droplets is formed.

The principal techniques used to control emissions of chromic acid mist from decorative and

hard chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing operations include add-on control devices and

chemical fume suppressants. The control devices most frequently used are mist eliminators and wet

scrubbers that are operated at relatively low pressure drops. Because of the corrosive properties of

chromic acid, control devices typically are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or fiberglass.

Chemical fume suppressants are added to decorative chromium plating and chromic acid

anodizing baths to reduce chromic acid mist. Although chemical agents alone are effective control

techniques, many plants use them in conjunction with an add-on control device.

Chevron-blade and mesh-pad mist eliminators are the types of mist eliminators most frequently

used to control chromic acid mist. The most important mechanism by which mist eliminators remove

chromic acid droplets from gas streams is the inertial impaction of droplets onto a stationary set of

blades or a mesh pad. Mist eliminators typically are operated as dry units that are periodically washed

down with water to clean the impaction media.

The wet scrubbers typically used to control emissions of chromic acid mist from chromium

plating, and chromic acid anodizing operations are single and double packed-bed scrubbers. Other

scrubber types used less frequently include fan-separator packed-bed and centrifugal-flow scrubbers.

Scrubbers remove chromic acid droplets from the gas stream by humidifying the gas stream to increase

the mass of the droplet particles, which are then removed by impingement on a packed bed.

Once-through water or recirculated water typically is used as the scrubbing liquid because chromic

acid is highly soluble in water.

Chemical fume suppressants are surface-active compounds that are added directly to chromium

plating and chromic acid anodizing baths to reduce or control misting. Fume suppressants are

classified as temporary or as permanent. Temporary fume suppressants are depleted mainly by the

decomposition of the fume suppressant and dragout of the plating solution, and permanent fume

suppressant are depleted mainly by dragout of the plating solution. Fume suppressants include wetting

agents that reduce misting by lowering the surface tension of the plating or anodizing bath, foam

blankets that entrap chromic acid mist at the surface of the plating solution, or combinations of both a

wetting agent and foam blanket. Polypropylene balls, which float on the surface of the plating baths,

also are used as a fume suppressant in chromium plating tanks.

National emission standards to regulate chromium emissions from new and existing hard and

decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks at major and area sources were

promulgated on January 25, 1995 (60 FR 4948). The regulation requires limits on the concentration of

chromium emitted to the atmosphere (or alternative limits on the surface tension of the bath for

decorative chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks) and specifies work practice standards, initial

performance testing, ongoing compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Table 12.20-1 presents the emission factors for chromium electroplating. The emission factors

are based on total energy input and are presented in units of grains per ampere-hour (grains/A-hr). For

controlled emissions from chromium electroplating operations, each of the add-on control devices used

in the industry generally achieves a narrow range of outlet concentrations of chromium, regardless of

the level of energy input. For this reason, total energy input may not be an appropriate basis for

establishing emission factors for this industry. Therefore, the factors for chromium electroplating tanks

12.20-12 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
in Table 12.20-1 are presented both as concentrations and in units of total energy input. Emission

rates for controlled emissions should be estimated using the concentration factors and typical exhaust

flow rates for the particular type of exhaust system in question. The factors for controlled emissions

based on total energy input should only be used in the absence of site-specific information.

Table 12.20-2 presents emission factors for chromic acid anodizing. The emission factors are

presented in units of grains per hour per square foot (grains/hr-ft2) of tank surface area. Table 12.20-3

presents particle size distributions for hard chromium electroplating. Table 12.20-4 presents emission

factors for the plating of metals other than chromium.

Emissions from plating operations other than chromium electroplating can be estimated using

the emission factors and operating parameters for chromium electroplating. Equation 1 below

provides an estimate of uncontrolled emissions from nonchromium plating tanks.

EFm = 3.3 x 10-7 x (EEm/em)xCm x Dm (1)

where:

EFm = emission factor for metal "m", grains/dscf;

EEm = electrochemical equivalent for metal "m", A-hr/mil-ft2;

em = cathode efficiency for metal "m", percent;

Cm = bath concentration for metal "m", oz/gal; and

Dm = current density for metal "m", A/ft2.

Equation 2 below provides an estimate of controlled emissions from nonchromium plating tanks.

EFm = 0.028 x EFCr x Cm (2)

where EFm and Cm are as defined above, and

EFCr = emission factor for controlled hard chromium electroplating emissions, grains/dscf.

Equations 1 and 2 estimate emissions from the formation of gas as a result of the electrical

energy applied to the plating tank; the equations do not account for additional emissions that result

from air sparging or mechanical agitation of the tank solution. To estimate uncontrolled emissions due

to air sparging, the following equation should be used:

(3) E1 100 k1R2

b

















(1 2a 9a2)

0.5 (a 1)

(1 3a) (1 2a 9a2

)

0.5

0.5

a

6.45 R2

b

k2

, k1

56.7 σ

c

2

s

, k2

1.79 x 105 σ

(ρ1 ρg) g

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-13
where:

E1 = emission factor, grains/bubble;

Rb = average bubble radius, in.;

σ = surface tension of bath, pounds force per foot (lbf

/ft);

cs = speed of sound, ft/sec;

ρ1 = density of liquid, lb/ft3;

ρg = density of gas (air), lb/ft3; and

g = acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2.

Substituting typical values for constants cs (1,140 ft/sec), g (32.2 ft/sec2), and assuming values for ρl

of 62.4 lb/ft3 and for ρg of 0.0763 lb/ft3, Equation 3 can be reduced to the following equation:

where:

(4) E2

1.9 σ

Rb

















(1 2a 9a2)

0.5 (a 1)

(1 3a) (1 2a 9a2

)

0.5

0.5

a =

0.072 R2

b

σ

E2 = emission factor in grains/ft3 of aeration air; and

the other variables are as defined previously.

Equations 3 and 4 also can be used to estimate emissions from electroless plating operations.

It should be noted that Equations 1 thorough 4 have not been validated using multiple emission tests

and should be used cautiously. Furthermore, the emission factors that are calculated in units of

concentration may not be applicable to plating lines in which there are multiple tanks that introduce

varying amounts of dilution air to a common control device. Finally, Equation 1 does not take into

account the emissions reductions achieved by using fume suppressants. If a fume suppressant is used,

the corresponding emission factor for hard chromium plating with fume suppressant control should be

used with Equation 2 to estimate emissions. Alternately, Equation 1 can be used and the resulting

emissions can be reduced using an assumed control efficiency for hard or decorative chromium

electroplating, depending upon which type of plating operation is more similar to the type of plating

conducted. The control efficiencies for chemical fume suppressants are 78 percent for hard chromium

electroplating controlled and 99.5 percent for decorative chromium plating. Based on the requirements

for the chromium electroplating national emission standard, emissions from decorative chromium

plating baths with chemical fume suppressants are considered to be controlled if the resulting surface

tension is no more than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm) (3.1 x 10-3 pound-force per foot [lbf

/ft]).

Emissions chromium electroplating operations are regulated under the 40 CFR part 63,

subpart N, National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative

Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. These standards, which were promulgated

on January 25, 1995 (60 FR 4963), limit emissions of total chromium to 0.03 milligrams per dry

standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (1.3 x 10-5 grains/dscf) from plating tanks at small, hard chromium

electroplating facilities; and to 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 x 10-6 grains/dscf) from all other hard chromium

plating tanks. Small, hard chromium plating facilities are defined in the rule as those which have a

maximum cumulative rectifier capacity of less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. Total chromium emissions

from decorative chromium plating tanks and chromic acid anodizing tanks are limited to 0.01 mg/dscm

(4.4 x 10-6 grains/dscf), unless a fume suppressant is used and the bath surface tension is maintained

at no more than 45 dynes/cm (3.1 x 10-3 lbf

/ft).

12.20-14 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Table 12.20-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATINGa

Process

Chromium Compoundsb EMISSION

FACTOR

RATING

Total PMc EMISSION

FACTOR

RATING grains/A-hr grains/dscf grains/A-hr grains/dscf

Hard chromium electroplatingd

(SCC 3-09-010-18)

0.12 NA B 0.25 NA C

-- with moisture extractore NA 0.00014 D NA 0.00028 E

-- with polypropylene ballsf NA 0.00042 D NA 0.00088 E

-- with fume suppressantg NA 0.00016 D NA 0.00034 E

-- with fume suppressant and

polypropylene ballsh NA 3.0 x 10-5 D NA 6.3 x 10-5 E

-- with packed-bed scrubberj NA 2.1 x 10-5 D NA 4.4 x 10-5 E

-- with packed-bed scrubber, fume

suppressant, and polypropylene

ballsk

NA 2.6 x 10-6 D NA 5.5 x 10-6 E

-- with chevron-blade mist

eliminatorm NA 8.8 x 10-5 D NA 0.00018 E

-- with mesh-pad mist eliminatorn NA 1.2 x 10-5 D NA 2.6 x 10-5 E

-- with packed-bed scrubber and

mesh-pad eliminatorp

NA 3.2 x 10-8 E NA 6.7 x 10-8 E

-- with composite mesh-pad mist

eliminatorq

NA 3.8 x 10-6 D NA 8.0 x 10-6 E

Decorative chromium electroplatingr

(SCC 3-09-010-28)

0.033 NA D 0.069 NA E

-- with fume suppressants NA 1.2 x 10-6 D NA 2.5 x 10-6 E

a For chromium electroplating tanks only. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise

noted. Emission factors based on total energy input in units of grains per ampere-hour

(grains/A-hr) and based on concentrations in units of grains per dry standard cubic foot

(grains/dscf). To convert from grains/A-hr to mg/A-hr multiply by 64.8. To convert grains/dscf to

mg/dscm, multiply by 2,290. To convert grains/A-hr to grains/dscf, multiply by 0.01. To convert

grains/dscf to grains/A-hr multiply by 100. Note that there is considerable uncertainty in these

latter two conversion factors because of differences in tank geometry, ventilation, and control device

performance. For controlled emissions, factors based on concentration should be used whenever

possible. SCC = Source Classification Code. NA = units not applicable. b Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium. c Total PM includes filterable and condensible PM. However, condensible PM is likely to be

negligible. All PM from chromium electroplating sources is likely to be emitted as PM-10. Factors

estimated based on assumption that PM consists entirely of chromic acid mist. d References 5-13,15,17-18,23-25,28,34. e References 8,14. f Reference 10.

g Reference 15.

h References 18,23-25. j References 11-13,18,32,34-35. k References 18, 40-42. m References 5-7. n References 8-10,21,28.

p Reference 37.

q References 11-13. r References 19-20,25-26. s References 20, 25-26.

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-15
Table 12.20-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZINGa

Process

Chromium

Compounds,b

grains/hr-ft2

EMISSION

FACTOR

RATING

Total PM,c

grains/hr-ft2

EMISSION

FACTOR

RATING

Chromic acid anodizingd

(SCC 3-09-010-38)

2.0 D 4.2 E

-- with polypropylene ballse 1.7 D 3.6 E

-- with fume suppressantf 0.064 D 0.13 E

-- with fume suppressant and

polypropylene ballsg

0.025 D 0.053 E

-- with packed-bed scrubberh 0.0096 D 0.020 E

-- with packed-bed scrubber and

fume suppressantd

0.00075 D 0.0016 E

-- with mesh-pad mist eliminatork 0.0051 E 0.011 E

-- with packed-bed scrubber and

mesh pad mist eliminatorm 0.00054 D 0.0011 E

-- with wet scrubber, moisture

extractor, and high efficiency

particulate air filtern

0.00048 D 0.0010 E

a For chromium electroplating tanks only. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise

noted. Factors are in units of grains per hour per square foot (grains/hr-ft2) of tank surface area.

SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from grains/hr-ft2 to mg/hr-m2, multiply by 697. b Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium. c Total PM includes filterable and condensible PM. However, condensible PM is likely to be

negligible. All PM from chromium electroplating sources is likely to be emitted as PM-10. Factors

estimated based on assumption that PM consists entirely of chromic acid mist. d References 27,29-30,33,42. e Reference 30.

f References 27,29-30.

g References 27,30. h References 33,39. j Reference 36.

k Reference 21. m Reference 37. n Reference 42.

12.20-16 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
Table 12.20-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CHROMIUM

ELECTROPLATINGa

Uncontrolled Controlledb

Diameter,

μm

Cumulative Percent Less Than

Diameter,

μm

Cumulative Percent Less Than

Total PMc Chromium

Compoundsd

Total PMc Chromium

Compoundsd

<0.5 0 0 <0.49 0 0

0.5 9.1 6.9 0.49 18.5 20.4

2.4 48.3 67.7 2.35 94.7 97.5

8.0 59.3 82.6 7.9 100 99.2

a Reference 6. Based on C-rated emission data for hard chromium electroplating tanks. Source

Classification Code 3-09-010-18.

b Controlled with chevron-blade mist eliminators. c Total PM consists of filterable and condensible PM. However, condensible PM is likely to be

negligible. d Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium.

Table 12.20-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ELECTROPLATING--OTHER METALSa

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Source Pollutant

Emission Factor

Ref.

grains/A-hr grains/dscf

Copper cyanide electroplating tank with mesh-pad mist

eliminator

(SCC 3-09-010-42)

Cyanide NA 2.7 x 10-6 21

Copper sulfate electroplating tank with wet scrubber

(SCC 3-09-010-45)

Copper NA 8.1 x 10-5 31

Cadmium cyanide electroplating tank

(SCC 3-09-010-52)

Cadmium 0.040 NA 31

-- with mesh-pad mist eliminator Cyanide NA 0.00010 21

-- with mesh-pad mist eliminator Cadmium NA 1.4 x 10-7 21

-- with packed-bed scrubber Cyanide NA 5.9 x 10-5 22

-- with packed-bed scrubber Cadmium NA 1.7 x 10-6 22, 31

-- with packed-bed scrubber Ammonia NA 4.2 x 10-5 22

Nickel electroplating tank

(SCC 3-09-010-68)

Nickel 0.63 NA 31

-- with wet scrubber Nickel NA 6.7 x 10-6 31

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. All emission factors in units of grains per

ampere-hour (grains/A-hr) and as concentrations in units of grains per dry standard cubic foot

(grains/dscf). To convert from grains/A-hr to mg/A-hr multiply by 64.8. To convert grains/dscf to

mg/dscm, multiply by 2,290. To convert grains/A-hr to grains/dscf, multiply by 0.01. To convert

grains/dscf to grains/A-hr multiply by 100. Note that there is considerable uncertainty in these latter

two conversion factors because of differences in tank geometry, ventilation, and control device

performance. SCC = Source Classification Code. NA = units not applicable.

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-17
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 12.20

1. Horner, J., "Electroplating", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 4th Ed., Volume

No. 9, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994.

2. Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Chromium (Supplement), EPA

450/2-89-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1989.

3. Chromium Emissions From Chromium Electroplating And Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations--

Background Information For Proposed Standards, EPA 453/R-93-030a, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.

4. Metal Finishing Guidebook And Directory Issue ’93k, Volume 91, Issue 1A, Elsevier Science

Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, January 1993.

5. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Greensboro Industrial Platers, Greensboro, NC, Entropy

Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-1, March 1986.

6. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Consolidated Engravers Corporation, Charlotte, NC,

Peer Consultants, Inc., Rockville, MD, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 87-CEP-9, May 1987.

7. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Able Machine Company, Taylors, SC, PEI Associates,

Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-3, June 1986.

8. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Roll Technology Corporation, Greenville, SC, Peer

Consultants, Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC, EMB Report 88-CEP-13, August 1988.

9. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Precision Machine And Hydraulic, Inc., Worthington, WV,

Peer Consultants, Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 88-CEP-14, September 1988.

10. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Hard Chrome Specialists, York, PA, Peer Consultants,

Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,

EMB Report-89-CEP-15, January 1989.

11. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Piedmont Industrial Platers, Statesville, NC, Entropy

Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-04, September 1986.

12. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Steel Heddle, Inc., Greenville, SC, PEI Associates, Inc.,

Cincinnati, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-2, June 1986.

13. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Fusion, Inc., Houston, TX, Peer Consultants, Inc., Dayton,

OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB

Report 89-CEP-16, May 1989.

14. Hexalavent Chromium Emission Test Report: Precision Engineering, Seattle, WA, Advanced

Systems Technology, Atlanta, GA, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-18, December 1991.

12.20-18 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
15. Emission Test Report: Emission Test Results For Total Chromium Inlet And Outlet Of The South

Fume Scrubber, Monroe Auto Equipment, Hartwell, GA, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC,

Report No. 192-92-25, February 1992.

16. Chromium Electroplaters Emission Test Report: Remco Hydraulics, Inc., Willits, CA, Advanced

Systems Technology, Atlanta, GA, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-17, June 1991.

17. NESHAP Screening Method Chromium, Emission Test Report, Roll Technology Corporation,

Greenville, SC, EMB Report No. 87-CEP-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, September 1987.

18. Chromium Electroplating Emissions Comparison Test: Electric Chromic And Grinding Company,

Santa Fe Springs, CO, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-20, February 1992.

19. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: GMC Delco Products Division, Livonia, MI, Peer

Consultants, Inc., Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 89-CEP-7, March 1987.

20. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Automatic Die Casting Specialties, Inc., St. Clair Shores,

MI, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB

Report 89-CEP-11, April 1988.

21. NEESA 2-165, Chromium, Cyanide, And Cadmium Emission Tests Results, Building 604 Plating

Facility, Source Identification 10-PEN17008406, Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, Naval Energy

and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, January 1991.

22. Charles K. Yee, Source Emissions Tests at Buildings 604 and 3557 at Naval Air Rework Facility,

Pensacola, Florida, Navy Environmental Support Office, Port Hueneme, CA, September 1980.

23. Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, M&T Chemical’s Fumetrol 101 In Hard

Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, November 1, 1989.

24. Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, OMI International Corporation’s Foam-Lok L

In Hard Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, November 17,

1989.

25. Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, McGean Rohco’s Dis Mist NP In Decorative

Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, March 16, 1990.

26. Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, Omi International’s Zero-Mist In Decorative

Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, July 13, 1990.

27. Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, Autochem, Inc., M&T’s Fumetrol 101 In

Chrome Anodizing Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, March 1990.

28. William E. Powers and Seth Forester, Source Emission Testing Of The Building 195 Plating Shop

At Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA, 11-18 March 1985, Naval Energy and

Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, May 1985.

29. Efficiency Of Harshaw Chemical’s MSP-ST For Controlling Chrome Emissions From A Chromic

Acid Anodizing Tank, Pacific Environmental Services, Arcadia, CA, March 16, 1989.

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-19
30. Report of Hexavalent Chromium Emission Testing On The Chromic Acid Anodizing And Tri-Acid

Etching Processes At Buildings 3 And 5, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA,

Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, September 14, 1989.

31. Air Toxics Sampling Report Deutsch Engineered Connecting Devices, Oceanside, California,

Kleinfelder, Inc., San Diego, CA, June 28, 1991

32. Emission Test Results for Chromium Emission Rate of the Scrubber inlet at the U.S. Chrome

Corporation Facility, Batavia, New York, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 11, 1991.

33. Source Test Report for Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium From Chromic Acid

Anodizing, General Dynamics-Convair, Lindbergh Field Facility, Building #1, TEAM

Environmental Services, Inc., San Marcos, CA, March 24, 1993.

34. Source Emission Evaluation, Hytek Finishes Company, Chrome Abatement Equipment

Performance Evaluation, Kent, Washington, May 18-19, 1989, Am Test, Inc., Redmond, WA,

July 14, 1989

35. Measurement of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions From Hard Chrome Plating Operations at

Multichrome Company, Inc., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA, January 29,

1993.

36. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At

Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, San Diego, CA, Benmol Corporation, San Diego, CA,

October 29, 1991.

37. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At

Naval Aviation Depot, San Diego, CA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA,

April 8, 1992.

38. NEESA 2-197, Chromium Emission Tests Results, Building 32 Plating Facility, BAAQMD

Authority To Construct: 574, Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda, Naval Energy and Environmental

Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, August 1992.

39. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At

Naval Aviation Depot, San Diego, CA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA,

August 15, 1991.

40. Compliance Test Procedure, Pacific Hard Chrome, Tests Conducted December 3, 1991, Chemical

Data Management Systems, Dublin, CA, January 2, 1991.

41. Compliance Test Results, Babbitt Bearing, Test Date May 27, 1992, Chemical Data Management

Systems, Dublin, CA, 1992.

42. Source Test Measurement Of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Tanks At

Boeing Fabrication, 700 15th Street, S.W., Auburn, WA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,

Baldwin Park, CA, September 24, 1991.

43. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12-20, Electroplating, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1996.

12.20-20 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
44. D.S. Azbel, S.L. Lee, and T.S. Lee, Acoustic Resonance Theory For The Rupture of Film Cap Of

A Gas Bubble At A Horizontal Gas-Liquid Interface, Two-Phase Momentum, Heat and Mass

Transfer in Chemical, Process, and Energy Engineering Systems, Volume 1, F. Durst,

G.V. Tsiklauri, and N.H. Afgan, Editors, Hemisphere Publishing Company, Washington, 1979.

7/96 Metallurgical Industry 12.20-21