Sulfate-based systems utilize a more costly mixed-metal oxide (MMO) anode that requires recoating either after extended operation or if it gets scratched. Chloride-based systems utilize a graphite anode that can last indefinitely under proper operating conditions. The second operational factor to evaluate between the two systems is the difference in anodes. With a sulfate-based system, you would likely need to add stations to accommodate the slower plating time. Chloride-based systems usually plate at least twice as fast as sulfate systems so this is an important factor to consider, especially if you have a return automatic plating line.įor example, if your current hexavalent plating time is two minutes, you can use the same plating time when using chloride-based trivalent to get an equivalent thickness and performance. From an operational standpoint, this means you only need to change the tank equipment and solution you would not need to add stations to your return automatic line. When making the switch to decorative trivalent plating, many shops look at their existing line layout and timing and want to be able to maintain as close to the same process and plating speed they have with hexavalent plating in order to maintain their efficiency. From an operational standpoint, the first and most relevant factor to compare is the plating speed. There are several factors, both operational and performance-wise, to consider when it comes to evaluating the difference between the two types of baths. Can you explain the differences between the two and what factors we may want to consider as we evaluate our options?Ī. I understand there are differences between sulfate and chloride-based baths. We are a decorative plater in the automotive industry and have finally made the decision to switch over from hexavalent to trivalent chromium plating.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |