TriMac BLUE™
Published

Sulfuric Emissions from Electrocleaning

Question: My company operates a non-production electroforming line that vents into the plant environment.

Share

Question:

My company operates a non-production electroforming line that vents into the plant environment. One of the cleaning steps involves electrocleaning in a 30% sulfuric acid tank that we would like to vent externally, however, we can’t seem to find a way to calculate an emission rate which is required to determine permit applicability.

I reviewed your September, 2001 Pollution Control article on sulfuric acid emissions from anodizing, but the same formula can’t be applied to this situation.

We have also reviewed USEPA’s AP42 which gave an SCC code of 3-09-010-15 for acid dip but did not have an emission factor; even if there was the factor, I'm not sure we could use it because there is a current running through our tank.
Here is information on our tank:

 

  • 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 ft (approx. 25 gal)
  • a typical part has 64 sq inches of surface area
  • each cycle is three min at 40 amps

 

Any suggestions short of testing? C.M.

Answer:

Before answering your specific question, let me make several introductory comments.
First, USEPA and states would consider your entire electroforming line a “source,” not just the electroclean tank. Therefore, I recommend that you need to evaluate all process tanks.

Second, just because a “source” vents to the inside of a facility, and, hence, indirectly to the outside, does not mean it is exempt from air pollution permitting. EPA rightly asserts that pollutants released inside a facility will, eventually, be emitted to the outside.

Thirdly, the availability of “good” emission data for many metal finishing processes is sketchy at best.
Lastly, you are right regarding the acid dip tank in AP-42.

Please take another look at the September, 2001 article on anodizing emissions. It may “work” for your case.

Let’s recap the equation, which was extrapolated from chromic acid anodizing emissions as reported in a presentation at the 2000 AESF/EPA Conference for Environmental Excellence, “Characterizing Site Specific Source Emissions for EPA’s Risk Assessment Tool for the Metal Finishing Industry” by S. Schwartz and M. Lorber; the research was sponsored by USEPA and the National Center for Environmental Assessment.

EMa = (((CCa × CDa) / CEa) / CEa) / ((CCcr × CDcr) / CEcr) × ERcr × Aa

where

EMa = emission rate, lbs/hour,
CCa = pollutant concentration, oz/gal,
CDa = current density, amps/sq inch,
CEa = cathode efficiency,
CCcr = chromic acid concentration, assumed at 9 oz/gal based upon AP-42 background document
CDcr = current density of chromic acid anodizing process, assumed at three amp/ sq inch based upon presentation CEcr = cathode efficiency of chromic acid anodizing process, assumed at 95% based upon presentation
ERcr = pollutant emission rate from chromic acid anodizing process, assumed at 0.00029 lbs/hr/sq ft based upon AP-42 Table 12-20-2
Aa = surface area of tank, sq ft.
Why could this emission estimate “work” for you?

1) Electrocleaning is similar to anodizing in that current is used without plating, and its electrolysis of water creates hydrogen and oxygen bubbles, resulting in the misting of solution.
2) Pollutant concen- tration (sulfuric acid, or total solids, aka par- ticulates) is known or can be estimated.
3) Current density is known.
4) Catode efficiency is known or can be estimated.
5) Surface area of electroclean tank is known.

Considering your very small tank and short cycle time, I would be surprised that the source would require permitting unless your state requires a permit application for your particular process. The vast majority of states have “de minimis” emission thresholds below which permits or registrations are not required. Here in Ohio, if a source is not specifically regulated (your process is not) and has a pollutant emission rate of less than 10 pounds per day or a hazardous air pollutant (sulfuric acid is NOT a HAP) of less than 1 ton per year, it is exempt from permitting.

Let’s see what results this emission estimate comes up with if we assume:
CCa = 70 oz/gal of sulfuric acid, (my rough estimate of 30% sulfuric by weight)
CDa = 0.63 amps / sq inch ( 40 amps / 64 sq inches )
CEa = assume 50%
Aa = 2.25 sq ft ( 1.5 x 1.5 )
EMa = ((70 × 0.63) / 50% ) / ((9 × 3) / 95%)) × 0.00029 × 2.25 = 0.002 lbs/hr of sulfuric acid.

Hence, if this process ran 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, its potential-to-emit could be about 0.05 lbs/day and 17.5 lbs/year. This very low emission rate could explain why the process operators have been able to “tolerate” working around the tank.

A final note: Even though your process may not require air pollution permitting or registration, be very considerate on how you exhaust this process. Also, you may want to consider a mesh pad de-mister with periodic washdown in order to provide protection of your facility’s roof and nearby property and vehicles from possible sulfuric acid mist fallout.

 

Luster-On Products
KCH Engineered Systems
Rectifiers for the Plating Industry
In-Place Repairs for Canning Presses
Hitachi High-Tech FT200 series
TriMac BLUE™
Pretreatment Washer and Finishing Equipment
FABTECH 2024
Fischer Technology, Inc.
The Finishing Industry’s Education and Networking Resource
Koch Finishing Systems
More blasting. Less part handling.

Related Content

sustainability

NASF/AESF Foundation Research Project #121: Development of a Sustainability Metrics System and a Technical Solution Method for Sustainable Metal Finishing - 15th Quarterly Report

This NASF-AESF Foundation research project report covers the twelfth quarter of project work (October-December 2023) at Wayne State University in Detroit.  In this period, our main effort focused on the development of a set of Digital Twins (DTs) using the Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) technology with application on parts rinsing simulation.

Read More
basics

In-House Blackening of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals

Process satisfies customers’ shipping requirements while meeting stricter water regulations in times of drought.

Read More

NASF/AESF Foundation Research Project #120: Electrochemical Destruction of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in Electroplating Wastewaters – January – December 2023

This NASF-AESF Foundation research project report covers quarterly reporting for the year 2023 at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  The objective of this work is to utilize a cost-effective reactive electrochemical membrane (REM) for the removal of PFAS from synthetic electroplating wastewater.  Discussed here are the oxidation of PFOA with three different catalysts, development of a method for detecting PFAS, as well as work on 6:2-fluorotelomersulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) and electrodeposited bismuth/tin oxide catalysts.

Read More

NASF/AESF Foundation Research Project #120: Electrochemical Destruction of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in Electroplating Wastewaters – 7th & 8th Quarter Report

This NASF-AESF Foundation research project report covers the seventh and eighth quarters of project work (October 2021-March 2022) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  The major activities reported are: (1) to investigate 6:2 FTS oxidation, a common replacement compound for PFOS in the electroplating industry, and (2) PFAS oxidation in both a wastewater sample procured from an electroplating facility and in synthetic solutions. 

Read More

Read Next

automotive

The 2024 Ford Mustang: All the Colors Available

Although Chevrolet has announced the end of the Camaro and Dodge is offering “Last Call” editions of the Charger and Challenger, the Ford Mustang is launching to its seventh generation.

Read More
regulation

Episode 42: An Interview with Robin Deal, Hubbard-Hall

Hubbard-Hall wastewater treatment specialist Robin Deal discusses the latest trends in wastewater management. 

Read More
Powder Coating

Powder Coating 4.0: Smarter, Faster, More Efficient and Connected

New tools reduce cost and waste, lower manufacturing footprint of powder coating operations.

Read More
KCH Engineered Systems