Substitution of PFOS for use in nondecorative hard chrome plating

4
2.2.10 France 30
2.2.11 The Netherlands 30
2.2.12 EU 30
2.2.13 Switzerland 31
2.2.14 Canada 31
2.2.15 USA 32
2.2.16 China 32
2.2.17 Japan 32
2.2.18 Australia 33
2.2.19 Latin America 34
2.2.20 Africa 34
3 SURVEY OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO PFOS FOR
CHROME PLATING 35
3.1 CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 35
3.1.1 Information from organisations and institutions 35
3.1.2 Contact to producers and suppliers/Internet search 36
3.2 PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES (IPU) 40
4 ASSESSMENT OF THE FEASIBILITY OF THE
ALTERNATIVES 41
4.1 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 41
4.2 USABILITY – TECHNICAL 42
4.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT 43
4.3.1 PFOS 43
4.3.2 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
(CAS No. 27619-97-2) 47
4.3.3 PFBS 48
4.3.4 F-53 49
4.3.5 F-53B 49
4.3.6 Non-fluoro alternative 49
4.3.7 Comparison 49
4.3.8 Conclusion 50
5 TESTING OF ALTERNATIVES TO PFOS (LABORATORY
SCALE) (IPU) 53
5.1 TESTING IN THE LABORATORY (IPU) 53
5.1.1 Experimental procedure 53
5.1.2 Results 55
5.1.3 Discussion 56
6 TESTING IN LARGE SCALE 59
6.1 PLANNING OF LARGE SCALE TESTING 59
6.1.1 Use of a reference measurement without mist suppressant 59
6.1.2 Size of chrome bath 60
6.1.3 Electrical charge of the chrome bath 60
6.1.4 Identical measurements of PFOS and Fumetrol ®
21 60
6.1.5 Dosage of PFOS and Fumetrol ®
21 to the chrome bath 60
6.1.6 Duration and number of measurements 61
6.1.7 Measurement of total chromium emissions 61
6.1.8 Technical issues regarding the measurements 62
6.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 62
6.3 RESULTS 64
6.4 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 66