Historical Articles
March, 1952 issue of Plating
Some Characteristics of Zinc Cyanide
Plating Solutions
II. Haring Cell Throwing Power
Gustaf Soderberg, Editor, Plating
INTRODUCTION
The word throwing power, or throw, has been used to denote several
different concepts. As employed here it pertains solely to plate thickness.
In the Haring Cell(1), one cathode
is placed farther away from the anode than a second cathode, and the throwing
power is expressed as follows:
As pointed out by Blum et al.(2),
the Haring-cell throwing power is not a characteristic of the solutions
in the strict meaning of the word; it includes both solution variables and cell-size
factors. The cell is useful, however, in classifying solutions with respect
to their ability to deposit coatings of uniform thickness on articles with recesses.
EXPERIMENTAL
A Haring cell made of hard rubber was employed. At each end was placed a tightly
fitting cold-rolled SAE 1010 steel cathode, which had been cleaned and weighed
in the same manner as the efficiency-test cathodes of Part I of this series
of articles(3). A tightly fitting fine steel gauze electroplated with zinc was
placed as the anode between the cathodes. After the cell had been filled to
the mark with plating solution, its dimensions were as follows:
Electrode area and solution cross
section . . . 1 dm2
Distance from anode to far cathode. . . . . . .12.5 cm
Distance from anode to near cathode . . . . . 2.5 cm
Distance ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The cell was connected in series
with an ammeter, a carbon-pile rheostat, and a 12-volt lead storage battery.
Plating was continued only as long as the temperature throughout the solution
remained at 77 ± 2°F (25 ± 1°C). For that reason the average
thickness of zinc on the cathodes was always very low. It averaged 0.000065
inch (1.6 µ) throughout the investigation, but varied a great deal from
one determination to another.
At the end of the plating period,
the cathodes were removed, rinsed under the tap, in distilled water and in alcohol.
After they had dried in the air, they were placed in a dessicator until they
were ready for reweighing. The Haring-cell throwing power was then calculated.
RESULTS
The results are presented in the three-dimensional graphs of Fig. 1. The usefulness
and use of such graphs were discussed in Part I(3).
Some of the limitations on the scope
and accuracy are set forth in Part I. In addition, it will be noted that in
this study of throwing power only a few measurements were made with solutions
containing 3.5 and 4.5 oz/gal (26 and 34 g/l) of zinc, limiting the scope still
further, and that the accuracy is lower because of the larger number of measurements
involved in each determination.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The changes in throwing power with changes in solution composition or cathode
current density are not as straight-forward as the corresponding changes in
cathode current efficiency reported in Part I(3). The reason is, of course,
that throwing power is not a simple characteristic. Also, the errors are undoubtedly
larger.
Within the limited ranges that can
be compared, with total-cyanide and total-zinc contents remaining constant,
the throwing power decreased rather sharply with increasing zinc content. However,
at high current density (50 asf, or 5.4 amp/dm2) and high total cyanide content
(12 oz/gal, or 90 g/l) there was no change in throwing power with increased
zinc content.
The general effect of an increase
in total-cyanide content, at constant zinc and total-caustic contents, was an
increase in throwing power. Exceptions were found at low zinc content (2.4 oz/gal,
or 18 g/l) and high current density (50 asf, or 5.4 amp/dm2) where an increase
of total cyanide from 8 to 12 oz/gal (60 to 90 g/l) caused a decrease in throwing
power. This decrease was the cause of the lack of effect of increased zinc content
mentioned above.
No general rule can be formulated
for the effect of total-caustic content. A trend is discernible, however, at
low zinc content (2.4 oz/gal, or 18 g/l). When the total-cyanide content was
low (5 oz/gal, or 38 g/l) an increase in total NaOH from 3 to 12 oz/gal (22
to 90 g/l) caused the throwing power to rise from 47 to 57 per cent at 10 asf
(1.1 amp/dm2), but at 30 and 50 asf (3.2 and 5.4 amp/dm2) the throwing power
decreased from 55 to 36 per cent and from 63 to 46 per cent respectively. As
the total-cyanide content was increased this trend tended to reverse itself.
Thus, at 12 oz/gal (90 g/l) of total NaCN, as the total-caustic content was
raised gradually from 3 to 12 oz/gal (22 to 90 g/l) the throwing power first
dropped and then rose at 10 and 50 asf (1.1 and 5.4 amp/dm2) and first rose
and then dropped at 30 asf (3.2 amp/dm2).
Within the range explored at 4.5
oz/gal (34 g/l) of zinc, an increase in the total-caustic content had little
effect.
Broadly speaking, at a zinc content
of 2.4 oz/gal (18 g/l), an increase in cathode current density was effective
in raising the throwing power when the total cyanide and total-caustic contents
were low. High total cyanide content, however, partially reversed this effect,
and the lowest throwing power was had at the highest current density (50 asf,
or 5.4 amp/dm2).
Within the narrow range studied at
4.5 oz/gal (34 g/l) of zinc, the throwing power dropped with increasing current
density at the lowest total cyanide content (8 oz/gal, or 60 g/l), but rose
with increasing current density at the highest total-cyanide content (16 oz/gal,
or 120 g/l). At intermediate total-cyanide contents (9-12 oz/gal, or 68-90 g/l)
the throwing power first dropped to a minimum at 30 asf (3.2 amp/dm2) and then
rose again.
Although only relatively few tests
were carried out in solutions containing 4.5 oz/gal (38 g/l) of zinc, they do
show that high-zinc solutions can have equally high throwing power as low-zinc
solutions, but only when the total-cyanide content is very high and then particularly
when the higher current densities are employed.
CONCLUSIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
These will be presented in the final installment of this series.
REFERENCES CITED
(1). H.E. Haring and W. Blum, Trans. Electrochem Soc. 44, 313 (1923).
(2). W. Blum, A. O. Beckman and W. R. Meyer, ibid. 80, 256 (1941), Modern
Electroplating, The Electrochemical Society, New York (1942) p. 14.
(3). G. Soderberg, Plating 38, 928 (1951).