SMALL PLATING COMPANY REDUCES COST BY CONVERTING TO WATER CLEANING PROCESS
California Electroplating Inc., a small company with 19 employees located in Los Angeles, began operation in 1915. The job shop offers chromium, copper and nickel plating finishes for zinc die cast, steel and brass stock.
The company has two plating lines. The first line is a computer-controlled automatic rack plating line. The parts that are plated on this line contain oil and various other types of contaminants but do not generally contain polishing or buffing compound. The second line, the hand line, is used for plating smaller volume custom jobs. The parts on this line contain buffing compound.
The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) began work with California Electroplating in late 1997. The company wanted to find a suitable alternative to the solvents they used to clean the parts prior to plating. For many years, the company used 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and perchloroethylene (PERC) in a vapor degreaser for this purpose. Production of TCA has been banned because the chemical causes ozone depletion and PERC is classified as a toxic.
IRTA performed field testing in an ultrasonic cleaning system with a water-based cleaner that is especially effective for removing buffing compound. The cleaner, Daraclean 236, is supplied to California Electroplating by Applied Cleaning Technologies (ACT). "I was skeptical at first that a water-based cleaner could remove our polishing compound," says Frank Grana, one of the owners of California Electroplating. "The cleaner did a good job on all our parts and we decided to purchase an ultrasonic system."
At this stage, the company is using the new ultrasonic cleaning system which was built by Sonicore to clean all the parts from the hand line. Mr. Grana plans to install a hoist over the next few months so the cleaning system can also be used for the parts on the automated line which must be cleaned in baskets. "We're saving a lot in labor cost because the ultrasonic system is so effective on the polishing compound. We want to shut down the vapor degreaser entirely."
California Electroplating is able to use the cleaning bath for two months before it requires changeout. The company has experimented with the proper concentration and found that eight percent is optimal. "The cleaner is expensive but we use a low concentration and the bath life is much longer than I expected," says Mr. Grana.
Mr. Grana cautions that equipment manufacturers that make ultrasonic
systems for platers should design them to be more hardy. Moisture
ended up penetrating the generator, which is part of the cleaning
system. Mr. Grana solved the problem by placing a light, which
dries the sensitive components, inside the generator casing. "We've
gone through four printed circuit boards since we started operating
the ultrasonic cleaner," says Mr. Grana. "They fail
quickly because of the corrosive environment in the plating shop,"
Even so, he is very satisfied with the new system. "We would
not be able to clean as quickly or as well without the unit,"
he says.
|
|
||
|
PERC Vapor Degreasing |
Water-Based Cleaning | |
| Annualized Equipment Cost |
|
|
| Cleaner Cost |
|
|
| Labor Cost |
|
|
| Disposal Cost |
|
|
| Electrical Cost |
|
|
| Gas Cost |
|
|
| Total Cost |
|
|