SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.

htm

CLEANER PRODUCTION APPROACH IN THE ELECTROPLATING INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA

Total Daily Discharge = 5480 Liters

K.G.S. Jayawardana[1], and

Prof. (Mrs.) N. Ratnayake[2]

ABSTRACT
A study was carried out to investigate the opportunities for waste minimization and optimization of wastewater treatment in an electroplating
facility in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The process line consisted of four main blocks, namely plating surface preparation, nickel-plating, chromium-
plating and finishing. The plant operates 8 hours a day, 5days a week. Initial observations revealed that some unnecessary unit operations are
included in the process, and drain boards are not provided to collect the drippings. It was also found that quality control of the product is
poor, as the attention was focused only on the appearance of the finished product, and the industry lacks technical know-how to carry out the
electroplating process efficiently. The final effluent from the wastewater treatment plant did not comply with the CEA requirements on
account of high metal concentrations. Literature review [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7] and laboratory studies were carried out, and the study
helped to make recommendations to improve this situation with respect to waste minimization and wastewater treatment.

1 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

INTRODUCTION

There are more than 80 electroplating units in Sri Lanka, including household units. However, the level of electroplating technology in Sri
Lanka is low, and several problems of electroplating facilities with regard to plating technology and wastewater treatment has led to surface
and ground water pollution with heavy metals, at the same time reducing the profits of the industry due to loss of valuable raw materials.

The objective of this study was to investigate the possibilities of waste minimization and optimization of wastewater treatment in the

electroplating industry, using readily available resources and technologies in the country, focusing on the nickel and chromium-plating
process and treatment of wastewater generated in that process. A factory producing electroplated bicycle rims was used as a case study.

METHODOLOGY

Methodology of this study consisted of making observations of the existing process estimating water and energy consumption, analysis of

process solutions and treated wastewater, studying process parameters used in the production process and wastewater treatment, and

carrying out a designed experiment to study optimum pH for heavy metal precipitation. An Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer with a
graphite furnace was used to measure the very low concentrations of metal in the solutions.

OBSERVATIONS

The process line consisted of four main blocks, namely plating surface preparation, nickel-plating, chromium-plating and finishing. The plant

operates 8 hours a day, 5days a week. Plant layout at Figure 1 and the process flow chart at Figure 2 show the sequence of the unit
operations employed. Inclusion of unnecessary unit operations such as electrolytic degreasing after HCl pickling and lack of drain boards are

the main weaknesses identified during the initial observations.

It was also found that quality control of the product is poor, as the attention was focused only on the appearance of the finished product, and
the industry lacks technical know-how to carry out the electroplating process efficiently. However, the industry has managed to incorporate a
few waste minimization options such as minimization of solvent degreasing, introduction of two-step rinsing, dragout recovery etc.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table.1 shows the estimated volumes of water and measured process operating conditions. It was found that most of the baths used in the

surface preparation are contaminated with Cr and Ni. This is probably due to recycling of rejected platings back into surface preparation with

out proper stripping of already plated Ni and Cr.

The Energy source used in this industry is electricity and it is used mainly for bath heating and electroplating. Electricity is supplied

2 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

continuously to the heaters used for bath heating for a specific period in each working day and no temperature feed back control systems are

used. Estimated energy consumption for bath heating in the process steps is summarized in Table 2.

Further, it was apparent that short actual production period compared to long heater operation periods results in inefficient energy use. In
order to quantify the possible energy savings by introducing longer working hours, the energy consumption for the different activities were

calculated for varying working hours. Table 3 shows the possible savings in energy if longer working hours are used.

Each rinsing bath used in the Surface Preparation process line is flushed daily with fresh water for about 5 minutes. During the five minutes

each tank receives about 300 liters of fresh water. Degreasing baths are flushed once a week with about 300 liters of fresh water. Water in
the rinsing baths used in the plating process line and finishing operation (bath No.16, 21, 22 and 23) is changed daily. The amounts of

wastewater generation in the production process are tabulated in the Table 4.

Data in Table 4 indicates that the volume of wastewater generated in the plating surface preparation process is about 2200 liters compared to

3200 liters generated in other three processes (i.e. Ni plating Cr plating and Finishing).

With regard to the wastewater treatment, it was noted that the Nickel and Chromium wastewater streams are separately stored, and the

Nickel is precipitated by increasing the pH value to 13 –14 using NaOH, while the Cr6+ is reduced to Cr3+ by lowering the pH to less than

5.5, after which the two streams are mixed in a neutralization tank. The pH of the mixture is adjusted to 7.0 – 8.0, before the precipitated
hydroxides are separated by sedimentation, and the supernatant is released to a surface water body. Please refer Fig. 3.

Careful study of the above process showed that some of the Nickel that was precipitated would actually re-dissolve in the neutralization tank,

thus losing the benefit of separately precipitating the Nickel. Theoretical calculations show that as much as over 20 mg/l of Nickel would
redissolve when the pH is changed from 10 (at which the solubility is 1.39 mg/l) to 7 (at which the solubility is 24.2 mg/l). Literature also
suggests that the reduction of Cr6+ to Cr3+ would be optimum at pH 2.5 – 3.0 [8], at which value the dichromate ions are dominant. A

laboratory study carried out using a mixture of Nickel and Chromium (Cr3+) salts showed that the optimum pH for hydroxide precipitation of

nickel and chromium in a mixture is pH 8.0, at which value the concentration of supernatant could be maintained below the CEA standards

for discharge into inland surface water. Please see Fig 4 (a) and (b). The solids separation could be improved by filtration after sedimentation.

RECOMMENDATIONS
As waste minimization measures, it is recommended to introduce drain boards, stripping for rejects, temperature feed back control system for

heaters and improved process control in nickel-plating activity immediately. Longer working hours a day would increase the savings on

electricity used for bath heating.

It is also recommended to omit unnecessary unit operations and to change over to Cr3+ chromium plating solution instead of Cr6+ solutions,

and proper quality control procedures such as corrosion resistance test & adhesion tests for the final product to increase the value of the

product and reduce wastage.

Measures recommended to improve the wastewater treatment system include carrying out chromium reduction at pH 3 for a minimum period

of 30 minutes, strict control of Cr6+ discharge into the Metal Precipitation Tank, carrying out nickel and chromium precipitation at a pH
value between 8 – 8.5 using Ca(OH)2 or NaOH, and filtering the supernatant of the sedimentation tank to avoid escape of suspended

3 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

material with the supernatant, and to delay the neutralization step until the solids separation is completed.

REFERENCES

[1] BATSTONE, R., SMITH, J.E., and WILSON, D. (1989), The Safe Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. The special Needs and Problems of
Developing Country. Volume I, World Bank Technical Paper Number 93. pp.31-32, 161-184, 270-440 The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development the World Bank (Washington D.C)

[2] CRITENDEN, B. and KOLACZKOWSKI, S. (1995), Waste Minimization A Practical Guide. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby
,U.K..

[3] DUFFY, J.I., (1981), Electroplating Technology – Recent Developments pp181-188, Noyes Data Corporation Park Ridge New Jersey
USA.

[4] JICA (1997), Study on Industrial Sector Development (Electroplating and Waste Water Treatment in the Democratic Socialist Republic
of Sri Lanka), Tokyo, Japan.

[5] PLETCHER DEREK (1982), Industrial Electrochemistry pp. 172-199, Chapman and Hall Ltd., London

[6] TONDON, O.N., (1984) Hand Book of Electroplating, Anodizing and Metal Treatments, Small Industry Research Institute, Delhi.

[7] UNEP (1991) Audit and Reduction Manual for Industrial Emission and Waste, Technical Report Series No7, Industry and Environment
office, France.

[8] JØRGENSON S.E., (1979), Industrial Wastewater Management, Elsvier Publishing Co. Inc (New York) USA.

4 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

Table 1: Process operating conditions and Cr and Ni concentrations of the baths

NO. BATH TYPE WORK VOL. TEMPE RENTION Cr Conc. Ni Conc.

Liters RATURE TIME mg/Liter mg/Liter

1 ELECTROLESS DEGREASING BATH 2525 70 C 2-5 min 17.91 0.86

2 ELECTROLYTIC DEGREASING BATH 2525 65 C 2-5 min 22.96 0.92

3 RINSING WATER BATH 2525 RT 30 sec. 0.15 0.92

4 RINSING WATER BATH 2525 RT 30 sec. 0.22 0.56

5 PICKLING BATH (20% HCI) 2496 RT 5-10 min 3.84 10.14

6 RINSING WATER BATH 2496 RT 30 sec. 0.41 1.24

7 RINSING WATER BATH 2496 RT 30 sec. 0.4 0.87

8 ELECTROLYTIC DEGREASING BATH 2525 65 C 1-2 min 1.36 0.65

9 RINSING WATER BATH 2525 RT 30 sec. 0.53 0.91

10 RINSING WATER BATH 2525 RT 30 sec. 0.52 0.58

11 RINSING WATER BATH 2496 RT 30 sec. 0.61 1.36

12 H2SO4 BATH (20%) 2496 RT 1 min 0.44 41.24

13 NICKLE PLATING BATH 1800 50-55 C 20-30 min 0.05 128,280

14 NICKLE DRAGOUT i 365 RT 30 sec. 0.19 119.910

15 NICKLE DRAGOUT ii 305 RT 30 sec. 0.48 67,510

16 RINSING WATER BATH 736 RT 30 sec. 5.76 22.88

17 CHROME PLATING BATH 2228 43-48 C 45-60 sec. 124,410 3.57

18 CHROME DRAGOUT i 100 RT 1 min 125,970 4.21

19 CHROME DRAGOUT ii 400 RT 30 sec. 85,163 1.62

20 CHROME NUTRALISER 736 RT 30 sec. 74,400 29.13

21 RINSING WATER BATH 736 RT 30 sec. 3.52 0.12

22 RINSING WATER BATH 736 RT 30 sec. 3.52 0.12

23 RINSING HOT WATER BATH 736 60 C 30 sec. 8.14 0.63

5 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

Table 2: Energy consumption for bath heating

Unit operation Total heater Operating duration Consumption

capacity (W) (kWh/day)

Alkali soak degreasing 9000 2:00 am-4:00pm 126

Electrolytic degreasing 1 9000 2:00 am-4:00pm 126

Electrolytic degreasing 2 9000 2:00 am-4:00pm 126

Nickel plating 6000 4:00 am-4:00pm 72

Chromium plating 6000 4:00 am-4:00pm 72

Hot water rinsing 3000 2:00 am-4:00pm 42

6 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

Table 3: Possible savings achieved if they operate the plant for long hours

Working hours 8hrs/day 12hrs/day 16hrs/day 24hrs/day

Energy required to heat nickel 72kWh/day 96kWh/day 120kWh/day 144kWh/day
plating bath
Energy required to heat 72kWh/day 96kWh/day 120kWh/day 144kWh/day
chromium plating bath
Energy required to heat hot 42kWh/day 54kWh/day 63kWh/day 72kWh/day
water bath
Total energy requirement 564kWh/day 732kWh/day 870kWh/day 1008kWh/day

No of rims produced per day 288 432 576 864

Energy requirement for bath 1.96kWh/rim 1.69kWh/rim 1.51kWh/rim 1.17kWh/rim

heating per rim plated

7 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

Table 4: Volume of wastewater generation in the production processes

Bath No. Discharge frequency Volume discharged Daily consumption

1 Weekly 300 liters 60 liters

2 Weekly 300 liters 60 liters
3 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
4 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
6 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
7 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
8 Weekly 300 liters 60 liters
9 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
10 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
11 Daily 300 liters 300 liters
16 Daily 800 liters 800 liters
21 Daily 800 liters 800 liters
22 Daily 800 liters 800 liters
23 Daily 800 liters 800 liters

8 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

9 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

10 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

Figure 2 Contd.......

11 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

12 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM
SUMMARY file:///H|/aprscpweb2/roundtables/4th/Papers/Rantnayake_W08.htm

[1] Central Environmental Authority, Sri Lanka

[2] Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

13 of 13 11/5/2008 4:35 PM